Pro-AI super PAC network fails to sway midterm results

The pro-AI spending machine

Leading the Future entered the 2025 midterm cycle as the largest pro-AI super PAC network in the country. The organization was built as a 'structured ecosystem' designed to provide maximum flexibility for influencing elections from 2026 onward. It functioned by utilizing a network of 501(c)(4) organizations and various federal and state super PACs.

The group's funding came from some of the most prominent names in Silicon Valley. High-profile tech billionaires, including Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale and OpenAI’s Greg Brockman, contributed to a war chest of approximately $100 million. The network was managed by major political strategists and aimed to oppose policies that might stifle technological innovation.

To reach voters on both sides of the aisle, the network split its efforts into specific entities. American Mission primarily focused on supporting Republican candidates, while Think Big served as the arm for Democratic candidates. This dual-track approach allowed the network to exert influence across the entire political spectrum simultaneously.

A strategy of influence and intimidation

The network's primary goal was to influence how lawmakers legislate regarding technology and AI. According to Sacha Haworth, the executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, the group intended to bully lawmakers into staying quiet on AI safety. The strategy was meant to intimidate politicians into avoiding any regulations that might impact the tech industry's bottom line.

One of the network's most prominent targets was Democrat Alex Bores, a former Palantir engineer running on an AI safety platform. Leading the Future spent millions of dollars on attack ads during his primary bid to eliminate him from the race. They reportedly expected to completely bury his candidacy to serve as a warning to other lawmakers who considered supporting similar safety measures.

However, the plan backfired when Bores' candidacy became a high-profile proxy war for competing AI philosophies. While he did not win the primary, his profile rose significantly due to the intense spending against him. The pro-AI safety group Public First, which receives significant funding from Anthropic, spent $15 million to boost Bores' candidacy in the process.

Shifting tactics and voter backlash

As the midterm cycle progressed, the spending patterns of Leading the Future began to change noticeably. The network spent about $26 million on independent expenditures during the primary phase but saw spending taper off for the general election. During this time, the group reported zero donations in both the second and third quarters of the year.

This shift in strategy occurred as polling began to show a significant amount of distrust toward Big Tech and corporate cronyism. An NBC exit poll revealed that 56 percent of voters stated that AI and data centers played a major role in their voting decisions. This public sentiment may have forced the network to pivot toward a more conservative influence play.

Instead of fighting risky battles, the network began overwhelmingly backing candidates in safe races. Haworth described this move as an attempt to ingratiate the group with incoming members of Congress. By supporting incumbents and safe bets, the network hoped to secure a foothold in government without facing the backlash of high-profile ideological battles.

Failures in high-stakes races

The network's most ambitious bets on swing seats did not yield the desired results. In South Carolina, American Mission donated more than $2 million to Darline Graham, who was known for her support of AI and data center expansion. Despite the funding, Graham lost her bid for a full term, receiving only 46.5 percent of the vote in a state that had not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1998.

Other toss-up races also saw the network's influence falter. In North Carolina's 1st district, the network backed Republican Laurie Buckhout in her primary, but she lost to Democrat Don Davis. Davis had previously cosponsored a bill to limit tax giveaways for data center development, directly opposing the network's interests.

In Montana, the network backed Aaron Flint, a conservative commentator, in a race against Democrat Sam Forstag. Forstag advocated for strict federal oversight of AI and received endorsements from major progressives like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortz. While the results for that race are still pending, the network's ability to secure victories in these contested areas appears to have been limited.

The reckoning for Silicon Valley

The midterm results suggest a significant setback for the AI industry's efforts to purchase a Congress that would ignore regulation. Brad Carson, the co-founder of Public First Action, called the results a crushing blow to anti-regulatory efforts. He argued that voters in both parties delivered a verdict against the industry's attempt to buy political influence.

The political atmosphere is now shifting toward a potential reckoning for the power and freedom Silicon Valley has enjoyed. Democrats have already signaled their intent to bring Big Tech bosses to Capitol Hill for formal hearings. The focus is moving away from private lobbying and toward public accountability and legislative oversight.

Senator Ron Wyden has already hinted at the severity of the upcoming actions by signaling that subpoenas may be on the way. This indicates that the era of quiet influence may be ending as lawmakers look to address the public's concerns. The next phase of the political cycle will likely see a much more aggressive push for AI safety and tech accountability.