Micah Lasher delivered a clear message to the major AI firms that had invested a staggering $27 million in the recent congressional election for Manhattan. Speaking from the podium on Tuesday night, he declared, “I have news for the two big AI companies that were so invested in this race: I will not take my direction from either of you when it comes to safeguarding our children, our employment, or our environment.”
Lasher, who received no financial backing from these AI corporations, emerged victorious against Alex Bores, a state assemblyman who unexpectedly became the focal point of a fierce competition between opposing AI interests. Pro-safety AI super PACs, led by Public First Action with support from Anthropic, invested $19 million to bolster Bores’ campaign, while Leading the Future, associated with OpenAI president Greg Brockman and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, spent $8 million attempting to undermine him. Ultimately, Lasher secured 39% of the vote, with Jack Schlossberg, a candidate with a notable family background, trailing significantly in third place. After his win, Lasher committed to championing the same AI regulatory approach as the candidate he defeated.
The efforts of Leading the Future to prevent the election of a pro-regulation candidate like Lasher were unsuccessful, and Public First Action fell short of its goal to claim the victory for AI regulation supporters, noted Adam Kovacevich, a former Google public policy executive who founded the progressive technology trade group Chamber of Progress. “They aimed for a scenario where they could boast about electing a strong advocate for AI regulation,” he explained.
Kovacevich pointed out the uniqueness of New York’s primary, as it marked the first time in the nation where AI advocates on both sides—those pushing for stringent regulations like Anthropic and those advocating for greater innovation flexibility like OpenAI—contended in the same electoral battle. This outcome reflects a broader national trend: across 35 elections and significant financial outlays, AI companies are not achieving favorable returns on their investments.
“It’s still too early to label any of these strategies as a resounding success or complete failure,” Kovacevich admitted.
In terms of financial impact, super PACs aligned with AI interests have poured over $50 million into the 2026 elections, with contributions of $22 million from pro-innovation groups such as Leading the Future, and nearly $28 million from pro-safety PACs like Public First Action, as reported by Transformer, which aggregates Federal Election Commission data.
The engagement of AI firms in U.S. electoral politics gained momentum in 2024, following the introduction of Senate Bill 1047 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), which outlined the first set of state-level regulatory guidelines for advanced AI. Despite expressing tentative support for an amended version of this bill, which was ultimately vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom over concerns that it could hinder innovation, Anthropic proceeded to endorse various California legislative initiatives for AI regulation, adopting a strategy that emphasizes a fragmented approach to establishing industry guidelines.
The subsequent formation of Leading the Future in August 2025, funded with more than $100 million from investors including Andreessen Horowitz and Brockman, was interpreted by Kovacevich as a response to increased efforts from Anthropic regarding AI regulatory legislation, further demonstrating the contrasting philosophies between Anthropic and OpenAI regarding AI oversight. The co-founders of Anthropic, Dario and Daniela Amodei, parted ways with OpenAI in early 2021, citing differences over AI safety issues.
However, Kovacevich pointed out that the advocacy for candidates by AI companies might be less about legislative influence and more about signaling their power to other politicians. From the perspective of Leading the Future, anyone pushing for AI regulations without industry involvement could become a target, while Public First Action’s stance suggests that those advocating for AI regulations could rely on support from these organizations.
As the political landscape continues to evolve, particularly with Democrats likely gaining control of Congress and pursuing bipartisan AI regulations, the essential influence of PAC spending on elections remains uncertain. Although Lasher was anticipated to defeat Bores and received substantial financial support, including a $10 million contribution from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, this race was distinctive. Generally, PACs tend to favor incumbents, who enjoy a higher success rate in elections.
Another factor limiting the influence of these PACs is that AI has not yet emerged as a priority for the electorate. A March NBC News poll indicated that 57% of voters believe the risks of AI outweigh its benefits. Furthermore, a study by David Shor’s Blue Rose Research revealed that although AI saw an increase in importance among voters, it still ranked only 29th out of 39 issues assessed.
The situation remains fluid for both factions. A slow-moving Congress benefits Leading the Future, while a regulatory landscape that varies from state to state could advantage Anthropic and Public First Action. The outcome of Tuesday’s election suggests that such a fierce battle may not be easily replicated in the future, according to Kovacevich, who noted, “It’s hard to see another confrontation like this one on the horizon.”
