AI PACs spent millions trying to shape Congress — here’s how they fared

AI-focused political action committees spent millions backing candidates in Tuesday's midterm elections with mixed results, as pro-industry and pro-regulation groups each saw some candidates win while others lost.

American Mission and Building the Future, two PACs supporting the AI industry, collectively spent $4.8 million backing South Carolina Senate candidate Darline Graham, who lost. American Mission is the Republican spending arm of Leading the Future (LTF), a political group backed by OpenAI president Greg Brockman and Andreessen Horowitz. American Mission also spent more than $500,000 apiece supporting Montana House candidate Aaron Flint and North Carolina House candidate Laurie Buckhout, both of whom lost. LTF's Democratic spending arm, Think Big, had better success backing Florida Rep. Jared Moskowitz, who won reelection.

Public First, backed by Anthropic, supported several Republicans who lost but had more success with Democratic candidates. The group contributed $3 million to a PAC supporting California state Sen. Scott Wiener, who was leading his race at publication time.

Guardrails Alliance, which opposes AI industry political spending, spent more than $1 million apiece opposing California Rep. Jimmy Gomez and Aaron Flint, both of whom lost. The group also spent $300,000 supporting Angela Gonzales-Torres, who defeated Gomez.

LTF spent $27.38 million in primary elections, including $8 million opposing New York Assembly member Alex Bores, who lost his congressional bid in June. The group views primaries as more effective for building candidate name recognition and establishing AI policy agendas. For general elections, LTF assesses race competitiveness and whether spending could make a difference.

Charlie Blaettler, political director of Guardrails Alliance, suggested LTF spent comparatively little in the general election to avoid becoming a liability. He noted people distrust AI industry political spending. Guardrails Alliance aims to make AI money "politically toxic," Blaettler said, while LTF favors a single national AI framework that overrides state laws. Both sides plan continued spending in future elections.