Leading artificial intelligence companies are increasingly influencing U.S. political races through significant spending on political advertisements, underscoring a shift in how emerging technology firms engage with policy and electoral processes. This growing involvement reflects differing views within the AI industry on regulation and the future governance of the technology.
Anthropic and OpenAI, two prominent AI developers with distinct regulatory philosophies, have emerged as major players in this arena. While OpenAI advocates for federal-level regulation only, Anthropic supports more stringent oversight and has backed states such as New York and California in adopting aggressive AI laws. These contrasting positions are being promoted through super PACs funded by key figures and investors connected to each company. These political action committees have utilized the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allows unlimited spending in federal elections, to shape congressional contests across both urban and rural districts.
In some cases, AI-backed spending has surpassed that of the candidates themselves. For instance, in a Montana Republican congressional primary, opponent Al Olszewski was defeated by a 30-point margin after his rival received $877,000 in super PAC-funded advertisements tied to OpenAI’s co-founder. Olszewski described the financial disparity as insurmountable for grassroots campaigns.
Both OpenAI and Anthropic stress that they maintain independence from the super PACs benefiting from their founders’ contributions, but substantial amounts of funding from private and corporate donors are channeled through these groups. One super PAC linked to OpenAI’s co-founder Greg Brockman and a major Silicon Valley venture capital firm reportedly controls over $125 million, while Anthropic-backed PACs have raised at least $20 million plus additional funds from undisclosed contributors. The influx of undisclosed political spending, often referred to as dark money, has become increasingly common, with over $1 billion tracked in 2024 alone—significantly more than in previous election cycles.
A notable battleground for AI-related political spending is New York’s Democratic primary in Manhattan, to succeed retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler. Both super PAC networks have each invested more than $7.5 million supporting Alex Bores, a state Assembly member and former Palantir engineer. Bores is the sponsor of the RAISE Act, a New York law that mandates transparency in AI safety protocols and requires rapid reporting of safety incidents. While OpenAI-aligned groups have attacked Bores by highlighting his previous support from controversial tech figures, Anthropic-supporting PACs praise his work as crucial for holding technology companies accountable. Another super PAC, Dream NYC, notable for backing Bores, is co-funded by employees from both Anthropic and OpenAI, emphasizing AI safety.
Beyond urban centers, debates surrounding AI have also played out in rural and conservative districts, often centered on the infrastructure supporting the technology, such as data centers. In Utah’s newly drawn 3rd Congressional District, where a proposed data center has raised environmental concerns amid drought conditions, candidates have voiced support for greater transparency. Anthropic-backed PACs have spent nearly $1 million supporting Maloy, a candidate emphasizing AI regulation, although her opponent Phil Lyman attributes this support to longstanding political alliances. Lyman, a former state representative, stresses that his criticism is about process transparency rather than opposition to AI or data centers.
Experts emphasize that AI policy is still evolving amid intense regulatory debates. Former Google policy executive Adam Kovacevich notes that AI companies appear to be adopting strategies similar to those used by the cryptocurrency industry, recognizing that cultivating political influence is essential for navigating future regulatory environments. The political influence exerted by AI developers marks a notable departure from earlier technology firms' generally low-profile lobbying approaches, indicating the high stakes involved as the industry seeks to shape the rules governing one of today’s most transformative technologies.