A fight over AI safety rules in New York is becoming a test case for a much larger political battle. Alex Bores, the New York Assembly member behind the bipartisan RAISE Act, is now the first target of Leading the Future, a pro-AI super PAC with powerful technology backers.
The dispute is about more than one state bill. It shows how quickly AI regulation has moved from policy rooms into campaign politics, especially when state lawmakers try to set rules while Congress has not passed meaningful AI regulation.
A super PAC enters the AI regulation fight
Leading the Future formed in August with a more than $100 million commitment. Its stated political direction is to support policymakers who favor a light-touch, or no-touch, approach to AI regulation.
The super PAC is backed by Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI President Greg Brockman. Other prominent technology supporters include Palantir co-founder and 8VC managing partner Joe Lonsdale, as well as AI search engine Perplexity.
Its first target is Bores and his congressional bid. Bores is running to represent the state’s 12th Congressional District, and the PAC’s move places his AI safety record at the center of that campaign.
Bores responded by framing the attack as evidence that the debate is clear to voters. Speaking Monday evening at a Journalism Workshop on AGI impacts and governance in Washington, D.C., he said: “I appreciate how straightforward they’re being about it.”
He added that when the PAC says it will spend money against him because he might regulate Big Tech and put basic guardrails on AI, “I just basically forward that to my constituents.”
What the RAISE Act would require
Bores is the chief sponsor of New York’s bipartisan RAISE Act. The bill applies to large AI labs and focuses on safety planning, compliance, incident disclosure and limits on releasing models that carry unreasonable risks of critical harm.
Under the bill, large AI labs would have to keep a safety plan in place to prevent critical harms. They would also have to follow that plan and disclose critical safety incidents, including cases such as bad actors stealing an AI model.
The legislation would also prohibit AI firms from releasing models with unreasonable risks of critical harm. Companies that fail to meet the standards could face civil penalties of up to $30 million.
The RAISE Act is currently awaiting Gov. Kathy Hochul’s signature. That status makes the political pressure more immediate, because the bill has moved beyond theory and into a decision point.
Bores said the drafting process involved consultation with large AI firms like OpenAI and Anthropic. According to him, those discussions led to the removal of provisions such as third-party safety audits, which he said the industry refused to accept.
Why the opposition is escalating
Zac Moffatt and Josh Vlasto, heads of Leading the Future, told Politico they would work on a multibillion-dollar effort to sink Bores’ campaign. In a statement sent to TechCrunch, they argued that Bores is pushing “ideological and politically motivated legislation” that would restrict New York and the country’s ability to lead on AI jobs and innovation.
They also said bills like the RAISE Act threaten American competitiveness, limit economic growth, leave users exposed to foreign influence and manipulation, and undermine national security.
In their emailed statement, Moffatt and Vlasto described the RAISE Act as “a clear example of the patchwork, uninformed, and bureaucratic state laws” that they say would slow American progress and create an opening for China in the global race for AI leadership.
Their preferred alternative is a single national AI regulatory framework. They said America needs one clear and consistent national approach that strengthens the economy, creates jobs for American workers, supports vibrant communities and protects users.
That argument reflects a broader Silicon Valley push against state-level AI regulation. Many in the industry have supported blocking states from passing laws related to AI. Earlier this year, a provision blocking state AI laws was slipped into the federal budget bill and was later removed. Lawmakers like Sen. Ted Cruz are now seeking to revive the idea through other legislative avenues.
Bores argues states can move first
Bores said he is worried that the push to block state AI laws could continue to build while the federal government has passed no meaningful AI regulation. His view is that state governments can move faster when Congress does not act.
He compared states to startups in the policy process: they can operate as laboratories and test what works. For Bores, the key question is whether Congress has actually solved the problem.
“The question should be, has Congress solved the problem?” Bores said. “If Congress solves the problem, then it can tell the states to get out of the way, but if they’re not going to pass a bill that’s actually addressing any of the problems…and then [saying that states can’t do anything] that just doesn’t make sense to me.”
Bores also said he has been in contact with policymakers in other states about standardizing legislation. That effort is meant to answer the industry’s objection that state-by-state rules could create a patchwork. He also said lawmakers should make sure there are no redundancies with the EU AI Act.
The broader stakes for trustworthy AI
Bores said concerns about AI are rising among his constituents. Those concerns include data centers pushing up utility bills and worsening climate change, chatbots affecting kids’ mental health, and automation changing the job market.
His argument is not that regulation should block innovation. He said he has rejected bills that he believed would create unintended consequences for the AI industry.
Instead, Bores is presenting the RAISE Act as a guardrail approach. The idea is that basic rules can support public confidence in AI rather than weaken the sector.
“Having basic rules of the road, literal or metaphorical, is actually a very pro-innovation stance if done well,” Bores said. “I fundamentally believe that the AI that wins is going to be the AI that is trustworthy. And the pushback from industry to say that government has no role in establishing that trust is one that I think you’re seeing people reject at every level.”
The immediate question is whether New York’s RAISE Act becomes law. The larger question is whether AI safety policy will be shaped first by states, by Congress, or by political spending aimed at stopping state action before it spreads.