Alex Bores has become a visible example of how quickly AI regulation can move from a statehouse policy fight into a national campaign issue. The New York Assembly member and Democratic congressional candidate helped write the RAISE Act, and that work has put him in the sights of Leading the Future, an AI-friendly super PAC with $100 million in backing.
Bores argues the attention has not hurt him. In an interview with WIRED, he framed the PAC’s attack as a way to elevate the question at the center of his bill: how to regulate a powerful technology so that its benefits are broadly shared.
A state AI bill became a bigger political test
Earlier this year, Bores and New York state senator Andrew Gounardes coauthored the RAISE Act. The bill would give New York’s attorney general power to bring civil penalties of up to $30 million against AI developers like OpenAI and Google if they fail to publish safety reports around their technology.
The RAISE Act passed through New York’s legislature in June. It is now due to be signed or vetoed by governor Kathy Hochul before the end of the year.
The bill matters beyond New York because it is one of a handful of state AI safety bills across the country aimed at regulating AI developers. At the same time, the Trump administration is readying an executive order aimed at thwarting state-level AI laws.
That clash creates the central policy question around the RAISE Act: if Congress does not pass an AI safety framework, should states be able to act on their own? Bores says the best answer would be federal, but only if it is an actual solution. In his view, blocking states without offering a bill to make AI development safe does not make sense.
Why Leading the Future targeted Bores
Leading the Future is the PAC now targeting Bores. In addition to backing from venture capital powerhouse Andreessen Horowitz, the recently formed PAC is funded by OpenAI cofounder Greg Brockman and Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale.
Andreessen Horowitz declined WIRED’s request for comment. Brockman and Lonsdale did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment.
The PAC plans to spend millions of dollars to kill Bores’ bid for Congress. Its leaders, Zac Moffatt and Josh Vlasto, told WIRED that Bores had advanced legislation they described as ideological and politically motivated, arguing it would handcuff New York’s and the country’s ability to lead on AI jobs and innovation.
They also said the PAC will “aggressively oppose policymakers and candidates in states across the country” that jeopardize Americans’ “ability to benefit from AI.” They declined to share the PAC’s next targets.
For Bores, the attack is proof that the fight is not only about one bill. He says the people funding the effort have significant money but represent a small minority’s view of what should happen with AI policy. His message to other lawmakers is that money should not scare them into abandoning their constituents.
Bores brings a technical résumé to the fight
Bores has argued that the AI industry is threatened by his technical background. He holds a masters degree in computer science from Georgia Tech and worked as an engineer at Palantir for four years.
He left Palantir in 2019 over a contract the company renewed with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). That history is part of how he presents himself in the AI debate: not as a lawmaker looking at technology from the outside, but as someone who says he understands the systems being debated.
He put that argument bluntly in the WIRED interview: “The part that scares Trump’s megadonors the most is that I actually understand AI.”
The draft executive order WIRED obtained indicates that Trump may soon create a group within the DOJ to litigate with states over AI laws. Bores criticized that approach, saying, “I’ve never heard someone say we need to promote more innovation with more lawsuits.”
What the RAISE Act is trying to enforce
Bores describes the RAISE Act as a way to enforce safety commitments companies have already made voluntarily. His concern is that economic pressure could lead companies to change course unless there is a penalty for failing to follow through.
In that framing, the bill is not presented as a broad attempt to slow AI development. It is presented as a mechanism to make safety reporting meaningful. Without penalties, Bores argues, safety promises can be ignored.
The most important elements from the source are clear:
- The RAISE Act applies pressure through safety report requirements.
- New York’s attorney general would be able to bring civil penalties of up to $30 million.
- The bill targets AI developers like OpenAI and Google if they fail to publish safety reports around their technology.
- The bill has passed New York’s legislature and awaits action from Kathy Hochul before the end of the year.
Those facts explain why the measure has attracted national attention. It is a state-level law aimed directly at large AI developers, and it arrives while federal efforts may move in the opposite direction by attempting to block state AI laws.
AI safety is now part of the campaign message
Bores says AI safety is not the only issue in his campaign. At his annual town hall with constituents, he said there were questions about AI, but also about infrastructure, health care and the broader economy. He expects to talk about all of those issues in the campaign, just as he says he has legislated on them in the Assembly.
Still, AI is becoming a defining part of his public profile. Bores argues the issue belongs in a New York campaign because AI will affect the economy, democracy and education. His broader message is that the technology is moving quickly and that lawmakers need to get it right.
That is why the fight over Leading the Future may have the opposite effect from the one the PAC intended. By making Bores a target, it also made his argument more visible: that AI policy is no longer a distant technical debate, but a question about who writes the rules, who enforces them and whether elected officials will act when Congress does not.