AI political rivals split $78.5 million in 2026 midterm spending

With one week remaining before the November midterms, political groups advocating for faster artificial intelligence development have outspent rivals pushing for stricter safeguards in general election contests. According to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings through October 20, the pro-acceleration camp spent approximately $8 million on congressional races. The group favoring stronger guardrails and state regulatory authority spent about $6.9 million in the same period.

This spending disparity follows a costly primary season where the two factions engaged in direct battles. In Florida's 25th District, Think Big, an affiliate of Leading the Future, spent $310,000 supporting Democrat Jared Moskowitz. Opposing him in the primary was Scott Singer, a Republican backed by Defending Our Values. That group spent nearly $857,000 to support Singer and an additional $740,000 to prevent his primary rivals from winning. Moskowitz and Singer now face each other in the general election.

The conflict mirrors a wider breakdown in Silicon Valley's attempt to build a unified political force. While both sides support AI innovation, they disagree on deployment speed and the balance of power between federal and state regulators. Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability, noted that money is flowing in all directions to control the direction of AI policy. He stated that the debate centers on the amount of regulation rather than the existence of it.

The strategy for these groups was modeled on the cryptocurrency industry's approach in 2024. Fairshake and its affiliated super PACs spent more than $130 million during that cycle, helping candidates win 53 of 58 races. Following this success, Leading the Future launched in August 2025 with over $100 million in commitments from investors including Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI President Greg Brockman, and Joe Lonsdale. The network deployed Democratic and Republican PACs to support candidates aligned with lighter regulation.

Rival groups formed quickly in response. Anthropic committed a total of $40 million to Public First Action between February and July of this year. Although the company restricts these funds to policy and education, allied super PACs have spent millions to advance similar goals. The most intense confrontation occurred in New York’s 12th District Democratic primary. Think Big spent $8.3 million to defeat state Assemblymember Alex Bores, a key author of state AI safety laws. The opposing camp spent about $15 million to support him.

Bores lost to Micah Lasher by a margin of 39% to 35%. The combined spending in that single race reached $23.3 million, representing roughly 40% of all primary spending by the two camps nationwide. This high-cost battle signaled that aggressive spending against safety-minded candidates would trigger significant counterattacks from within the industry.

Spending has slowed considerably as the general elections approach. Leading the Future's network reported roughly $26 million in primary independent expenditures compared to the current $8 million total. The safeguards camp reported $32.1 million in primary spending versus $6.9 million in general elections. Combined, these groups have spent about $78.5 million on federal candidates this cycle, with approximately 74% of that total going to primary races.

Major donors have also adjusted their strategies in response to public sentiment. A CNBC survey found that 52% of registered voters believe companies should pause advanced AI development until Congress passes regulations. Additionally, 63% said they would oppose an AI data center within 10 miles of their home. Citing internal concerns about reputational damage, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told Politico that the company is taking hits. The Brockmans abandoned plans for an additional $25 million contribution, and Meta returned $25 million to political groups this summer, reducing its planned state-level push by nearly 40%.