AI’s Attempt to Silence Politician Backfires, Boosting His Popularity
As the Democratic primary for New York’s 12th congressional district approaches its conclusion in June, the battle between two AI giants has escalated into a costly showdown over the future of AI regulation. The unexpected beneficiary of this conflict may be a relatively unknown New York state assemblyman, who has become the unlikely face of AI safety regulation amid the chaos.
Since late 2025, a super PAC, backed by influential tech figures, has poured millions into opposing Alex Bores, the author of one of the nation’s first AI regulatory bills. Their goal was to derail his campaign for the seat being vacated by long-time Democrat Rep. Jerry Nadler. Instead, Bores has emerged as a leading contender in a crowded eight-person race, recently dubbed the “face of Manhattan” by a prominent publication.
Remarkably, Bores achieved this without a significant advertising blitz. His campaign revealed that it only made its first ad buy in New York on May 11, nearly seven months after he entered the race and just weeks before the polls close on June 23. In stark contrast, the opposing super PAC has been running attack ads against him since December 2025, reportedly spending around $2.4 million.
Typically, a well-funded super PAC could easily overwhelm a candidate with its financial resources. This group had previously succeeded in the 2024 election, helping to unseat prominent politicians. In December, they even spent $120,000 on a single anti-Bores ad. The New York media market is notoriously expensive, making any advertising effort a significant investment.
When Bores joined the race last October, he faced several candidates with greater name recognition and financial backing. Among them were Micah Lasher, who had the support of Nadler’s political network and Mike Bloomberg’s super PAC, and Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of John F. Kennedy, who attracted the nostalgic Democratic establishment. Bores was not widely known before becoming a target for these AI companies.
A spokesperson for the opposing super PAC claimed that Bores was heavily influenced by tech billionaires and their interests. They argued that his campaign was funded by those seeking to gain regulatory control over AI. However, rather than stifling Bores’ campaign, the attacks only increased his visibility. Recent polling indicates he is now neck-and-neck with Lasher, and he has consistently outperformed his other rivals.
In a twist, the super PAC’s ad campaigns inadvertently served as a promotional boost for Bores, raising awareness of his candidacy. Initially, his campaign was concerned about making AI regulation a priority for voters, but the attacks helped elevate the issue’s prominence. Voters who had previously been unaware of Bores began receiving mailers and ads that framed him as a pro-regulation candidate, highlighting his authorship of the RAISE Act, which restricts the release of advanced AI models.
The more the super PAC targeted Bores, the more media attention he received, drawing public interest to the influence of Silicon Valley billionaires in a Manhattan election. This dynamic set Bores apart from his competitors, as he was being actively targeted by those seeking to influence AI policy. Interestingly, internal polling showed that voters exposed to negative information about Bores were more likely to support him.
Bores also found ways to counter the super PAC’s attacks with humor. One of their ads criticized his past work at Palantir, suggesting hypocrisy regarding his current stance on immigration enforcement. Bores responded by filing a cease-and-desist order for defamation, asserting that he had left Palantir due to its controversial practices.
The race gained national attention when another pro-regulation PAC announced its support for Bores, leading to increased media coverage of the rivalry between the two AI companies. This level of exposure is rare in House races, and many candidates would envy the attention Bores has received, especially given his previous obscurity.
