The crypto community was able to help buy itself a favorable administration in the 2024 election by pouring money into political action committees, and now the AI industry looks like it plans to follow the playbook heading into the midterms. According to CNBC, the biggest PAC in the game has already chosen its first target: a Democratic congressional candidate who helped pass a bill creating guardrails for AI.
The Leading the Future PAC — which counts among its supporters billionaire Marc Andreessen of Andreessen Horowitz fame, OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman, and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale — has reportedly already raised more than $100 million in its coffers, with the aim of advancing candidates interested in working with the AI industry (read: this Not to regulate).
New York State Assemblyman Alex Borres, who is running for Congress in 2026, does not meet the criteria. He was a co-sponsor of the Responsible AI Safety and Education (RAISE) Act, New York’s first significant effort to require major AI companies to implement safeguards to mitigate any catastrophic disaster. The bill, which is overwhelmingly supported by New Yorkers according to polling, passed the New York State Assembly and Senate without any problems, but still sits on Governor Kathy Hochul’s desk without being signed as she pursues ties with AI companies operating in the state.
The bill is not burdensome at all, requiring the biggest players in the AI field to identify potential security risks, make plans to mitigate them, and not release models that could cause undue harm if derailed. In the eyes of whoever will lead the PAC in the future, this is too much to ask. According to CNBC, the group called Borsch’s bill “ideological and politically motivated legislation” that would “handcuff” US companies involved in the race to create superintelligence. Whether or not they are actually capable of doing so, and whether it would be good if they did, are obviously questions that are not worth asking in PAC’s eyes.
One of Leading the Future PAC’s complaints is valid. “The United States needs a clear and consistent national regulatory framework for AI,” it said. The point is that we don’t have that. The Trump administration does not want this. And many of the people pouring cash into PACs have Trump’s ear. So it leaves one to wonder whether the call for a national regulatory framework is legitimate or simply an excuse to oppose action by the state where the federal government would not do so. Technically, neither framework is compatible – just not one that anyone outside the industry would probably be that excited about.
For what it’s worth, taking the lead on future decisions targeting Bourse has lit a fire under the candidate. In response to the group’s claims that the bill is “uninformed”, Bors responded to CNBC, “I’m someone with a master’s in computer science, two patents, and almost a decade working in tech. If they’re afraid of people who understand their business regulating their business, they’re telling themselves.” He also turned the attack into a fundraising opportunity, asking for contributions on X, saying, “If you don’t want Trump mega-donors writing all the tech policy, contribute to help us pushback.” This is not a bad pitch.