A new front opened in the AI money wars as Public First Action, a political committee backed by a $20 million contribution from Anthropic, moved to bolster New York Assembly member Alex Bores after weeks of attacks from a rival tech-aligned super PAC. The group is spending $450,000 to support Bores’ bid for New York’s 12th congressional district, according to reporting from Bloomberg, signaling a sharp split inside the pro-AI camp over how Washington should police frontier models.
Two Pro-AI Camps With Diverging Playbooks
Leading the Future, a well-financed super PAC with more than $100 million reportedly lined up from backers including Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI President Greg Brockman, AI search startup Perplexity, and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, has already poured about $1.1 million into ads attacking Bores. Its argument is familiar: guardrails that bite too hard could slow innovation and cede ground to foreign competitors.
Public First Action is also unabashedly pro-AI, but it is selling a different vision—one that emphasizes transparency requirements, formal safety standards, and meaningful public oversight. The strategic contrast is stark: instead of opposing regulation broadly, the Anthropic-funded effort is putting money behind a candidate who authored rules intended to make high-risk systems more accountable.
Why Alex Bores Became a Target in the AI Policy Fight
Bores drew fire for sponsoring New York’s RAISE Act, which would require major AI developers to disclose safety protocols and report serious misuse of their models. The measure mirrors a growing policy consensus—reflected in the White House’s AI executive order and work by the National Institute of Standards and Technology—that developers of the most capable systems should document testing, red-teaming, and incident reporting. Supporters say those obligations are basic hygiene for a technology already powering critical decisions across finance, health, and infrastructure.
Critics, including Leading the Future’s allies, frame the bill as premature regulation that could burden startups and push research out of state. That line of attack has become a staple in AI policy fights from Albany to Sacramento, where lawmakers have weighed proposals to impose baseline safety checks on frontier models while preserving space for open-source research and small-scale experimentation.
The Stakes In A High-Profile New York Race
New York’s 12th is an expensive media market where even a mid–six-figure buy can translate into meaningful reach with primary voters. Outside money often matters more in primaries than in general elections because turnout is lower and fewer ads cut through. Campaign finance experts note that super PACs cannot coordinate with candidates, but well-timed independent expenditures can still redefine a race’s narrative by framing a candidate’s record before opponents do.
Public First Action’s move effectively turns Bores’ record on AI into a litmus test for how Democrats might balance growth and guardrails. If a pro-safety, pro-innovation message resonates in a tech-savvy district, it will embolden lawmakers elsewhere who argue that “responsible AI” means more than voluntary commitments.
A Stress Test for AI Policy Money and Messaging
The clash underscores how quickly AI has become a standalone force in campaign finance. OpenSecrets has documented a sharp rise in tech-affiliated political spending and lobbying tied to AI over the last cycle, as companies and founders seek to shape rules on model evaluations, liability, and critical infrastructure risks. What is new here is not just the level of resources, but the messaging divergence inside the AI community itself.
Anthropic’s backing of Public First Action aligns with the company’s public posture around safety research, model evaluations, and risk mitigations. By bankrolling a committee that rewards candidates advancing disclosure and incident-reporting regimes, Anthropic and its allies are betting that durable growth for AI will require codified standards rather than ad hoc promises.
Meanwhile, the donors behind Leading the Future are channeling a Silicon Valley playbook that has succeeded in other policy arenas: define high-level principles, avoid prescriptive mandates, and deploy significant early money to shape the candidate pool. The $1.1 million already spent against Bores indicates a willingness to punish lawmakers who try to move first on binding rules.
What to Watch Next in This Costly New York House Race
Three questions now loom.
- Does the Public First Action buy blunt the impact of early negative ads and reset the race around Bores’ tech credentials and regulatory agenda?
- Do other candidates in competitive districts embrace RAISE-style proposals—or steer clear—after seeing how this contest plays out?
- Will the two-pronged pro-AI message evolve into a lasting coalition or harden into opposing camps as Congress weighs federal safety and disclosure rules?
For now, the takeaway is plain: AI policy is no longer an abstract debate happening on think tank panels. It is shaping who gets elected—and how quickly the United States sets the rules for one of the century’s most consequential technologies.
