Political groups on both sides of the AI debate put millions of dollars into Tuesday’s midterm elections, hoping to shape who serves in Congress and how AI is regulated. The results were uneven: some candidates who received substantial support lost, while other backed candidates won.
Big spending did not guarantee victories
Two industry-focused political action committees, American Mission and Building the Future, together spent $4.8 million backing South Carolina Senate candidate Darlene Graham. Graham lost her race. American Mission is the Republican spending arm of Leading the Future (LTF), a broader political group backed by OpenAI President Greg Brockman and the VC firm Andreessen Horowitz.
American Mission also spent more than $500,000 apiece supporting Republican House candidates Aaron Flint in Montana and Laurie Buckhout in North Carolina. Both lost. LTF’s Democratic spending arm, Think Big, had a different result: its support for Florida Rep. Jared Moskowitz coincided with his reelection win.
Groups seeking stronger AI safeguards also had mixed outcomes. Public First, backed by Anthropic, supported several Republicans who lost through its affiliated PAC, but had more success with Democratic candidates. The group also contributed $3 million to a PAC supporting California state Sen. Scott Wiener, who was leading his race when the article was published.
Guardrails Alliance spent more than $1 million apiece opposing two candidates who lost: California Rep. Jimmy Gomez and Montana’s Flint. It also spent $300,000 supporting Angela Gonzales-Torres, who defeated Gomez. These results show that campaign spending and candidate outcomes can align in some races, but they do not by themselves establish what caused a victory or defeat.
The broader election makes the effect hard to isolate
The role of AI-related spending is difficult to separate from the wider Democratic wave that swept Tuesday’s elections. The article also notes that Elon Musk reportedly poured half a billion dollars into supporting Republicans in the midterms, and many of his candidates lost. LTF, too, backed candidates it thought likely to win who ultimately lost to Democrats.
That uncertainty matters when assessing political action committees. A campaign contribution or advertising spend is visible, but the result reflects a wider electoral environment. In the races described here, groups on both sides could point to some wins and some losses, while the overall shift toward Democrats complicates any simple verdict on the influence of AI money.
Primaries remain a central focus for LTF
LTF told TechCrunch before Election Day that it considers primaries a more effective place to spend than general elections. Primaries determine each party’s nominee, and the group believes spending at that stage can build name recognition and help candidates establish AI policy agendas.
LTF spent $27.38 million in the primaries, including $8 million opposing New York Assembly member Alex Bores, who lost his bid for Congress back in June. When considering whether to enter a general election, LTF assesses how competitive the race is, whether its spending might make a difference, and whether the money should be saved for future elections.
Charlie Blaettler, political director of Guardrails Alliance, offered another explanation for LTF’s comparatively limited general-election spending. He argued that the group may not want its money to become an issue for candidates. Blaettler pointed to the Michigan Senate primary, where AIPAC spent close to $30 million backing Democratic candidate Haley Stevens against Abdul El-Sayed. Stevens conceded the primary to El-Sayed, who went on to win the Senate seat.
“AIPAC became the story in that race,” Blaettler said.
Blaettler argued that AI industry spending could also become a liability in a competitive race, citing public distrust of AI billionaires, company leaders, and technology industry lobbying. The two groups’ approaches reflect different campaign messages: LTF’s ads rarely mention AI and instead focus on popular issues for the candidate, while Guardrails Alliance’s ads focus specifically on who takes money from the AI industry.
The regulation debate will continue
At the heart of the contest is whether Congress should establish a national AI framework that overrides state laws, or whether states should retain the ability to impose safeguards of their own. The groups’ spending is one way they are trying to influence the candidates and public debate around that choice.
Neither side appears ready to retreat. LTF told TechCrunch that it plans to keep spending in the 2028 elections. Guardrails Alliance says it intends to continue opposing candidates backed by the AI industry. Blaettler summarized his group’s aim this way: “Our goal is to make AI money politically toxic.”
The election results offer no clear final answer about which strategy works best. They do show that AI policy has become a focus of organized political spending, and that the campaign to shape future rules will continue beyond this midterm cycle.