Summary: Silicon Valley is spending big to shape who writes the rules for artificial intelligence. Tens of millions of dollars are already flowing into pro-AI super PACs that aim to block state-level safeguards and push a single national policy. This is a shift from private lobbying to open electoral warfare: money, ads, and targeted races. The question is not just who wins seats, but who will control the guardrails for a technology that will touch work, safety, and democratic institutions for decades.
Interrupt + Engage: Here’s what they’re doing, and why you should ask hard questions
Silicon Valley’s play is simple and blunt: spend now, shape rules later. Leading the Future, backed by Andreessen Horowitz and executives tied to AI labs, has put more than $100 million behind a strategy that targets lawmakers who back state-level AI laws. Meta has promised tens of millions. Fairshake and other groups that cut checks for crypto are back with large war chests. What happens when companies turn from lobbying to purchasing influence through electoral spending? What happens when the election becomes the battleground for regulatory design?
The regulatory divide: federal preemption vs. state experiments
States like New York, California, and Colorado moved to require safety disclosures and risk assessments for large AI developers. The White House pushed back, arguing a national framework should preempt the "patchwork of state laws." David Sacks and the administration frame this as a race with China: uniform federal rules protect American competitiveness. President Trump’s executive order directed legal action against conflicting state laws and urged Congress to craft a single national approach.
That sets up two clear camps. One side stresses guardrails — disclosure, testing, measures against bias, and protections for communities. The other side warns that fragmented state rules will slow innovation and cost the country technological leadership. Both claims have merit. Who decides: fifty laboratories of policy innovation at the state level, or a centralized federal framework that treats AI as strategic infrastructure?
The industry campaign: ads, candidates, and messaging
Leading the Future isn’t hiding its aim. It buys television ads, names targets, and says it will oppose candidates who support state restrictions. One ad singled out Alex Bores in New York, calling his legislation a contributor to regulatory patchwork. Another ad supported a Texas candidate while leaning on broader conservative themes.
Meta’s two super PACs signal a broader industry effort to influence state legislatures and governorships. The messaging blends national security and economic arguments — "jobs," "competition with China," "national strength" — with safety language meant to sound reasonable: we need "one smart national policy that sets clear standards for safe AI." Repeating words like "one" and "national" is intentional: unity over fragmentation.
Political precedent and the money playbook
This approach isn’t new. Pro-crypto PACs spent heavily in 2024 through Fairshake and won influence. The tech playbook has been: raise large sums, deploy sophisticated political operatives, and target winnable races with focused messaging. Many of the same operatives are back. That gives the industry muscle and experience. But money alone isn’t always decisive.
Public sentiment matters. Polls show Americans are suspicious of AI and distrustful of tech leaders. Sacha Haworth notes that you can lose even with a spending advantage if public opinion turns against you. So the industry is pairing dollars with narratives designed to shift opinion: jobs lost without AI leadership, national security costs of falling behind, and supposed harms from a regulatory maze.
The counter-move: bipartisan organizing for safety
A counterweight has organized. Former representatives Chris Stewart and Brad Carson launched Public First to promote AI safeguards. They expect to raise tens of millions. Employees at AI labs have signaled interest in supporting such efforts. Public-first messaging centers on safety, civil liberties, and democratic accountability — themes that play well across party lines.
That contrast — deep pockets versus public concern — creates a classic political tension. Will concentrated industry money drown out voter skepticism, or will public opinion amplify the voices calling for guardrails? Which brings us to the real bargaining table: policy, not only spending.
Public opinion: a constraint on pure money power
Gallup finds eight in ten Americans support government rules around AI safety and data security, even if that slows progress. That’s a powerful political reality. When voters worry about privacy, algorithmic bias, and the power of CEOs, ad dollars need to overcome distrust, not only persuade. Which tactics work when you face skeptical voters? How do you craft messages that acknowledge legitimate risks while offering practical remedies?
Labeling concerns works: say, "I hear distrust about big tech's motives," and then ask calibrated questions that invite the other side to define acceptable trade-offs: "How would you balance national competitiveness with community safety?" That’s how to move from shouting to a negotiation where both sides narrow the gap.
Negotiation lessons for this fight — practical moves
Treat this political battle like a negotiation. Here are techniques that matter, borrowed from high-stakes bargaining and useful for campaign strategists, advocates, and lawmakers.
- Open-ended, calibrated questions: Ask "How can we set standards that protect people while keeping American firms competitive?" That forces creativity and invites ownership of solutions.
- Mirroring: Repeat short phrases to keep the conversation focused — "a patchwork of state laws?" — then let the other side explain. Mirroring buys time and extracts detail.
- Label emotions: "It sounds like you fear slowed innovation," or "It sounds like you worry about concentrated power." Naming emotions defuses them and builds trust.
- Use "No" strategically: Saying "No" can set boundaries — "No, we will not accept a framework that ignores algorithmic harm" — and forces a counterpart to reframe proposals.
- Silence: After asking a hard calibrated question, be quiet. The pause makes the other side fill it with substance or concessions.
These tactics move the debate from slogans to concrete trade-offs. They help negotiators find options that respect safety and competitiveness instead of polarizing around absolute positions.
What each side should commit to, if they want a deal
If the goal is a workable national policy, both camps must make visible commitments. Policymakers should demand enforceable transparency and third-party auditing for high-risk models. Industry should commit to timelines for safety testing, participation in independent audits, and funding for displaced workers. Ask: "What will you do to prove your commitment?" Public, verifiable steps change the conversation from rhetoric to accountability.
That approach leverages social proof: when reputable labs publish safety results and independent audits follow, skeptics soften. Authority matters — when respected scientists, civil-society leaders, and bipartisan lawmakers back an approach, it gains legitimacy and helps overcome public mistrust.
Risks if this becomes a raw money fight
If the contest reduces to who can outspend whom, we risk three bad outcomes: 1) policy that favors incumbents and raises barriers to competition; 2) cynicism and loss of public trust; 3) rushed or weak federal rules that neither protect the public nor provide clarity for industry. That’s what both sides should try to avoid. The public’s skepticism is not a nuisance — it’s a political constraint that can force better, not worse, policy.
A pragmatic path forward
Start with layered rules: baseline federal safeguards for safety, privacy, and civil rights; state-level labs for targeted experiments where federal standards leave gaps; and robust oversight mechanisms that include civil society and technical experts. Use pilot programs, independent audits, and sunset clauses to allow course correction. Ask stakeholders, "What measurable tests will show this approach is working?" and then publish those tests.
This path leans on commitment and consistency: once institutions commit to measurable safeguards, they face public pressure to follow through. It also uses reciprocity: industry that accepts oversight should get clear regulatory certainty and a level playing field.
Questions worth asking now
What local race will decide whether state-level safeguards survive? Which candidates will pledge public audits and worker transition funds? How will voters evaluate ads that say regulation will kill jobs when polls say they want rules? Who is ready to put concrete, verifiable commitments into law rather than into commercials?
Those are the questions campaigns should answer. They are also the questions citizens should demand of candidates. When you ask them, mirror answers back: "You say you'll prioritize jobs — how will your plan protect workers displaced by AI?" That keeps the debate grounded.
The industry has decided to play for control, and voters have strong views. Money amplifies messages, but it does not erase public judgment. If both sides are willing to negotiate — using clear questions, public commitments, and verifiable tests — the result can be a policy approach that defends safety and keeps innovation competitive. If not, the next Congress will inherit a mess: uneven rules, concentrated power, and public backlash.
#AISuperPACs #AIPolicy #Midterms2026 #TechPolitics #AISafety #PublicPolicy
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Kenny Eliason (dDvrIJbSCkg)