AI Rivalry Heats Up as Anthropic and OpenAI Enter Midterm Election Arena
Hello and welcome to Regulator, a newsletter for those keen on the intersection of technology and politics. If you’re not already on board, consider subscribing to stay updated, especially as we navigate the aftermath of the Musk v. Altman saga. If you have any insights about upcoming or hidden political clashes, feel free to share them.
Just a heads-up: Regulator will be taking a two-week break while I recharge. Unfortunately, this means I’ll miss the public unveiling of Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical on humanity in the tech age, which I’ve been eagerly anticipating. However, I’m sure the rest of the team will cover it thoroughly, so keep us bookmarked!
Heated rivalry, AI super PAC edition
A curious development in the realm of AI super PACs is that they’re starting to become both powerful and vulnerable. Recently, New York Democrat congressional candidate Alex Bores, who is heavily focused on AI regulation, challenged the pro-AI super PAC Leading the Future — backed by notable figures in the tech industry — to a live debate. The Bores campaign laid out their terms: Leading the Future could choose the moderator and its representative, but it must agree to debate before the June 23 primary.
The chances of this debate happening are slim. Leading the Future has yet to respond to the challenge. Nonetheless, this marks a significant escalation in a trend I’ve been observing: AI super PACs developing their own political identities, mirroring the companies and founders that support them, and then using those identities to engage in rivalry.
When Leading the Future launched last year, it was a typical super PAC, funded by wealthy individuals and companies with shared policy goals, operating at both state and federal levels. This was a result of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which allowed corporations to contribute unlimited funds to political advocacy groups. Shortly after, Meta announced its own AI-focused super PACs, indicating that its interests might not align with those funding Leading the Future. Over time, LTF became associated more with OpenAI than the broader AI industry, especially after Anthropic donated $20 million to a bipartisan super PAC network supporting Bores.
Legally, super PACs can’t coordinate with candidates on ad buys or messaging. However, it’s becoming increasingly common for companies to use super PACs to attack their corporate rivals, with candidates becoming secondary figures in the fray. Public First is now closely linked to Anthropic and its “doomerism” narrative, while LTF is recognized as the “Marc Andreessen-Greg Brockman-Joe Lonsdale-backed Leading the Future super PAC.” The beauty of non-coordination laws allows Bores, a coauthor of the New York state RAISE Act, to distance himself from any political antics funded by Anthropic.
Dark money? More like dork money: We haven’t even touched on the murkier aspects of campaign finance, including a potential group that might target LTF to win favor with Trump. Reports suggest that Leading the Future is seen as too bipartisan for Republican trust.
In March, a pro-AI advocacy nonprofit called Innovation Council Action emerged, led by Donald Trump’s former adviser Taylor Budowich and boasting a $100 million budget. It has the endorsement of David Sacks, a recurring figure in these discussions. ICA aims to promote Trump’s AI agenda, addressing a new challenge within the Republican Party: candidates who resist the pro-industry stances Trump has adopted.
(Who’s behind this agenda? We don’t know yet. ICA is classified as a “dark money nonprofit,” meaning its donors aren’t required to be disclosed.)
Time to regulate prediction markets now!
The latest tech causing a stir in Congress is prediction markets, which currently exist in a regulatory gray area: Are they gambling, or do they require their own legislation? The Senate Commerce Committee is holding its first hearing on sports betting and prediction markets, and they’re bringing in heavy hitters. Patrick McHenry, a former Republican chair of the House Financial Services Committee who has transitioned to a crypto lobbyist role, will testify for a new industry advocacy group called the Coalition for Prediction Markets.
What’s particularly intriguing is the coalition of industries that oppose prediction markets: the gaming sector (casinos, etc.), the futures market, and traditional sports betting, all of which see prediction markets as a threat. I suspect they’re behind FairPredicts, a “watchdog” group that has launched a significant ad campaign timed with this Senate hearing. The ads, appearing in Washington’s metro stations and on buses, parody Kalshi’s earlier advertising efforts.
Clarity we roll along
And speaking of strategic industry coalitions pushing back against Big Tech politics! The Senate Banking Committee recently moved quickly to approve the Clarity Act, with two Democrats joining the 15–9 majority after about three hours of debate. This bill aims to establish a financial framework for stablecoins and has already seen its share of drama: Coinbase withdrew its support over interest yields, traditional banks reacted strongly, and the midterms loom large.
However, the drama isn’t over yet, both procedurally and politically. There’s still the reconciliation process, a Senate floor vote, and the bill’s return to the House, along with whatever political maneuvering occurs in the meantime. A growing number of typically opposing industry groups are now echoing banks in their opposition to the Clarity Act for various reasons; police unions argue it could hinder money laundering investigations, while labor unions fear it might deplete workers’ pension funds. Once again, technology is creating unexpected alliances!
And now, Recess.
Specifically, my recess. Hopefully, the intersection of politics and technology won’t experience too many crashes while I’m away. But that might be a tall order.
See you in June.
