Kathy Hochul, governor of New York, left, and State Representative Micah Lasher, a Democrat from New York and US House candidate, center, during a primary electionKathy Hochul, governor of New York, left, and State Representative Micah Lasher, a Democrat from New York and US House candidate, center, during a primary election

Anthropic and OpenAI waged a $27 million proxy war in a Manhattan congressional race. The winner told them both to get lost

2026/06/27 03:29
5분 읽기
이 콘텐츠에 대한 의견이나 우려 사항이 있으시면 crypto.news@mexc.com으로 연락주시기 바랍니다

Micah Lasher had a message for the two AI companies that had just spent $27 million trying to decide who would represent Manhattan in Congress.

“I have some news for the two big AI companies who’ve taken such an unusual interest in who won this congressional seat,” he said from the podium Tuesday night. “I won’t be taking my cues from either of you when it comes to protecting our kids, our jobs, our environment.”

Lasher—who no AI company spent big money to elect—had just beaten Alex Bores, a state assemblyman who became the unlikely center of an extraordinary bidding war between rival AI factions. Pro-safety AI super PACs, including Public First Action backed by Anthropic, poured $19 million into supporting Bores. Leading the Future, tied to OpenAI president Greg Brockman and Andreessen Horowitz, spent $8 million trying to destroy him. Lasher won with 39% of the vote (while Kennedy scion Jack Schlossberg came in a distant third place). And then Lasher pledged to pursue the same AI regulation agenda as the man he beat.

Not only did Leading the Future fail to prevent the election of the pro-AI regulation, but Public First Action fell short of its goal of bragging rights, according to Adam Kovacevich, a former Google public policy executive and founder of Chamber of Progress, a left-of-center technology trade group.

“They wanted a world in which they could say they elected a vocal AI regulation champion,” Kovacevich told Fortune.

New York’s primary was exceptional, he said. It’s the only election in the country thus far where both sides of the AI world—those in favor of widespread regulation like Anthropic versus those favoring more leeway for innovation like OpenAI—battled over the same race. The result sheds light on a national pattern: Across 35 elections and millions in spending, AI companies are getting very little in return.

“It’s still pretty early to call any of these strategies a complete success or complete failure,” Kovacevich said.

The new AI battlefront

AI-related super PACs have spent more than $50 million on 2026 elections, including $22 million from “pro-innovation” groups like Leading the Future and nearly $28 million from “pro-safety” PACs like Public First Action, according to Transformer, a platformer that aggregates Federal Election Commission filings. 

The trend of AI companies throwing their hats into U.S. elections began in earnest in 2024, when Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) authored Senate Bill 1047, the first state-level regulatory guidelines for advanced AI. Athropic put its tentative support behind an amended version of the billion in a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who ultimately vetoes the bill over concerns of it stifling innovation and being too broad in scope. The tech company, however, went on to endorse additional California legislation regulating AI, adopting the strategy of supporting a patchwork of statewide efforts to place guardrails on the technology. 

The following year in August 2025, Andreessen Horowitz, Brockman, and Perplexity, among other investors, launched Leading the Future with more than $100 million in initial funding. Kovacevich argued the PAC’s creation was in direct response to Anthropic’s increased involvement in AI-related legislation—and a continuation of Anthropic and OpenAI’s opposing ethoses surrounding AI regulation. (Anthropic cofounders Dario and Daniela Amodei split off from OpenAI in early 2021 over AI safety disagreements to form Anthropic.)

“Absent anthropic trying to advance those laws,” Kovacevich said, “I don’t think any of this would have happened necessarily.”

PACs are looking for politicians, not voters

But AI companies throwing support behind candidates may have less to do with pushing legislation than making an example for other politicians, Kovacevich noted: From Leading the Future’s perspective, if you lead a push for AI regulation without the industry’s input, you will be targeted. Conversely, from Public First Action’s point of view, if you lead the push for AI regulation, you can count on its political support.

“A lot of these PAC strategies are partly about helping your friends and hurting your opponents, but they are partly about sending a signal to other politicians,” he said.

He suggested that at this juncture, tech companies may have little influence on actual legislation. Democrats are poised to take over the Congress, when they will likely work to pass bipartisan legislation regulating AI anyways.

It’s hard to say if PAC spending is the make-or-break force behind any election, and AI-related PACs are no exception. Lasher was expected to beat Bores and also received support in the form of a $10 million contribution from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. But the New York race was exceptional because in most cases, Kovacevich explained, AI-related PACs support the incumbent, who overwhelmingly win elections over new entrants.

American voters aren’t ready to care about AI

Another reason these PACs’ influence may be limited at this point is because thus far, AI has failed to make meaningful impressions during elections.

“At the end of the day, I just am not convinced that AI is a top priority for voters,” Kovacevich said.

While AI remains unpopular—an NBC News poll from March found 57% of voters believe its risks outweigh its benefits—it’s not top-of-mind during election season. David Shor’s Blue Rose Research found among more than 6,000 respondents that while AI was the issue that saw the biggest leap in importance for U.S. voters, it still ranked No. 29 among 39 issues the research firm measured.

The strategic picture remains unsettled for both sides. A slow-moving Congress favors Leading the Future; a state-by-state regulatory patchwork favors Anthropic and Public First Action. Neither scenario was resolved on Tuesday.

What NY-12 made clear is how unlikely a repeat becomes. “It’s hard to see another battle like this particular one on the horizon,” Kovacevich said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

면책 조항: 본 사이트에 재게시된 글들은 공개 플랫폼에서 가져온 것으로 정보 제공 목적으로만 제공됩니다. 이는 반드시 MEXC의 견해를 반영하는 것은 아닙니다. 모든 권리는 원저자에게 있습니다. 제3자의 권리를 침해하는 콘텐츠가 있다고 판단될 경우, crypto.news@mexc.com으로 연락하여 삭제 요청을 해주시기 바랍니다. MEXC는 콘텐츠의 정확성, 완전성 또는 시의적절성에 대해 어떠한 보증도 하지 않으며, 제공된 정보에 기반하여 취해진 어떠한 조치에 대해서도 책임을 지지 않습니다. 본 콘텐츠는 금융, 법률 또는 기타 전문적인 조언을 구성하지 않으며, MEXC의 추천이나 보증으로 간주되어서는 안 됩니다.

추천 콘텐츠

Why The Green Bay Packers Must Take The Cleveland Browns Seriously — As Hard As That Might Be

Why The Green Bay Packers Must Take The Cleveland Browns Seriously — As Hard As That Might Be

The post Why The Green Bay Packers Must Take The Cleveland Browns Seriously — As Hard As That Might Be appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Jordan Love and the Green Bay Packers are off to a 2-0 start. Getty Images The Green Bay Packers are, once again, one of the NFL’s better teams. The Cleveland Browns are, once again, one of the league’s doormats. It’s why unbeaten Green Bay (2-0) is a 8-point favorite at winless Cleveland (0-2) Sunday according to betmgm.com. The money line is also Green Bay -500. Most expect this to be a Packers’ rout, and it very well could be. But Green Bay knows taking anyone in this league for granted can prove costly. “I think if you look at their roster, the paper, who they have on that team, what they can do, they got a lot of talent and things can turn around quickly for them,” Packers safety Xavier McKinney said. “We just got to kind of keep that in mind and know we not just walking into something and they just going to lay down. That’s not what they going to do.” The Browns certainly haven’t laid down on defense. Far from. Cleveland is allowing an NFL-best 191.5 yards per game. The Browns gave up 141 yards to Cincinnati in Week 1, including just seven in the second half, but still lost, 17-16. Cleveland has given up an NFL-best 45.5 rushing yards per game and just 2.1 rushing yards per attempt. “The biggest thing is our defensive line is much, much improved over last year and I think we’ve got back to our personality,” defensive coordinator Jim Schwartz said recently. “When we play our best, our D-line leads us there as our engine.” The Browns rank third in the league in passing defense, allowing just 146.0 yards per game. Cleveland has also gone 30 straight games without allowing a 300-yard passer, the longest active streak in the NFL.…
공유하기
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:41
Luck, Stupidity, and Getting Ripped Off

Luck, Stupidity, and Getting Ripped Off

In a previous post I recounted how luck and stupidity kickstarted my retirement savings journey, but I glossed over one important detail: the cost. In the mid-eighties
공유하기
Humble Dollar2026/06/28 22:27
Why an Altcoin Rally Could Start When Everything Still Looks Terrible

Why an Altcoin Rally Could Start When Everything Still Looks Terrible

The post Why an Altcoin Rally Could Start When Everything Still Looks Terrible appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News The altcoin market is showing early signs
공유하기
CoinPedia2026/06/28 21:45

Newbies:Deposit $100, Get $1,000

Newbies:Deposit $100, Get $1,000Newbies:Deposit $100, Get $1,000

Plus Up to a $50 Referral Bonus