An AI proxy war could reshape Congress — before Congress reshapes AI

An AI Proxy War Could Reshape Congress — Before Congress Reshapes AI

An AI proxy war could reshape - In the lead-up to the midterms, a quiet but intense battle is unfolding across congressional districts. This isn’t a conflict over healthcare or education, but rather a struggle over the future of artificial intelligence. Companies and advocacy groups in the tech sector are pouring substantial resources into political campaigns, aiming to sway legislators and influence the direction of AI policy. The race to control the narrative around regulation is shaping up as a pivotal moment for the industry, with implications that extend far beyond the voting booths.

Financial Influence in the AI Era

According to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit tracking campaign finance, AI-aligned super PACs have already spent over $43.3 million on federal races this election cycle. This investment spans from Senate contests to local elections, signaling a widespread effort to embed corporate priorities into the legislative agenda. While the public’s appetite for AI’s potential is tempered by concerns over job displacement, energy costs, and societal shifts, the industry’s political spending suggests a belief that shaping policy is the key to maintaining dominance in the sector.

Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at Issue One, highlights the strategic importance of these expenditures. “This type of spending really helps shape who is at the table and what perspectives they are bringing into those conversations when new legislation is crafted,” he explains. Beckel’s remarks underscore a broader trend: the tech industry’s growing reliance on financial influence to advocate for its interests, even as debates over AI governance intensify.

“It's rewriting the playbook for how industries are trying to exert their influence in Washington and in states across the country,” Beckel adds.

The stakes are high. With Congress poised to take on AI regulation in the coming months, the current election cycle may serve as a testing ground for the industry’s competing visions. Some argue for minimal oversight to foster innovation, while others push for stricter rules to mitigate risks. This ideological divide is not just theoretical—it’s manifesting in the real-world battle for control over political narratives.

The New York Primary: A Microcosm of the AI War

American voters in New York City are set to witness a high-profile example of this influence on Tuesday, as the primary race in the 12th Congressional District becomes a focal point for the AI industry’s internal rivalries. The district, which stretches from 14th Street through Central Park, is known for its high per-capita income and progressive leanings. However, the contest has drawn over $15 million in AI-backed spending, with competing super PACs targeting a former Palantir employee, Alex Bores, who has emerged as a key figure in the debate.

Bores, 35, is a state assemblyman and a prominent advocate for stricter AI oversight. His support for the Responsible AI Safety and Education Act—a New York state law requiring AI firms to report safety incidents and disclose safeguards—has made him a target for both sides of the industry’s ideological split. When he entered the Democratic primary race in October 2025 to succeed retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler, the campaign quickly became a battleground for the broader AI regulatory debate.

OpenAI, the company behind the popular ChatGPT model, has thrown its weight behind efforts to undermine Bores. Super PACs linked to OpenAI investors have spent millions to run ads attacking his stance, with one early campaign claiming that New York’s RAISE Act would create a “chaotic patchwork of state rules that would crush innovation.” Meanwhile, Anthropic, an AI firm founded by former OpenAI employees, has mobilized its own network of super PACs to counter this push, highlighting the deepening divide between the two companies.

Competing Visions: OpenAI vs. Anthropic

The rivalry between OpenAI and Anthropic is more than just a corporate feud—it’s a proxy war for the future of AI governance. While both companies seek to drive technological advancement, their approaches to regulation differ sharply. OpenAI’s backers emphasize the need for a national framework to standardize AI development, whereas Anthropic’s supporters argue for state-level initiatives to ensure accountability and transparency.

Leading the Future, a group primarily funded by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and co-founded by OpenAI’s president Greg Brockman, embodies the first strategy. Its mission is to “oppose policies that stifle innovation, enable China to gain global AI superiority, or make it harder to bring AI’s benefits into the world.” This group has already spent $23.5 million on races across Texas, Georgia, Illinois, and Montana, leveraging a network of super PACs like Think Big and American Mission. In contrast, Anthropic has aligned itself with advocacy efforts that prioritize regulatory safeguards, positioning itself as a champion of balanced AI governance.

These competing ideologies are shaping not only political campaigns but also the industry’s broader ambitions. Both companies are preparing for massive initial public offerings later this year, and their rivalry extends to every aspect of the sector—from research funding to customer acquisition. The fight over who controls the policy agenda is, in many ways, a battle over the shape of the tech landscape itself.

Political Fault Lines and the Road Ahead

As the midterms approach, the AI sector’s influence is becoming more visible in the political arena. The surge in campaign spending reflects a strategic shift: instead of relying solely on lobbying, companies are directly investing in shaping public opinion and electoral outcomes. This approach has already raised the profile of candidates like Bores, even in a crowded primary field.

However, the implications of this strategy extend beyond individual races. The heated rhetoric and large-scale ad campaigns suggest that the AI industry is treating the midterms as a critical opportunity to secure legislative allies. If successful, these efforts could determine the trajectory of federal AI regulation for years to come. Conversely, if the public’s concerns about AI’s impact on society outweigh its benefits, the industry may find itself facing a more stringent regulatory environment.

With the primary race serving as a microcosm of the larger conflict, the outcome could set a precedent for how AI-related issues are addressed in the upcoming legislative sessions. The $15 million spent on pro- and anti-Bores messaging, as detailed in Federal Election Commission filings, underscores the intensity of the battle. As the votes are counted, the question remains: will the industry’s influence lead to a unified regulatory approach, or will it fracture Congress further, delaying meaningful action on AI?

Regardless of the immediate results, the proxy war between OpenAI and Anthropic has already altered the political landscape. By embedding themselves in the electoral process, these groups are ensuring their perspectives will shape the next chapter of AI policy. The race is far from over, but one thing is clear: the future of artificial intelligence is being fought in the halls of Congress, and the outcome will define the balance between innovation and oversight for generations to come.