AI companies pour over $200 million into midterms to shape federal AI regulation

What AI companies want for the millions they're spending on elections

The PACs are both pushing for a degree of AI regulation, but there are differences in what they're seeking. AI executives and companies are betting that spending millions in the 2026 midterm elections will allow them to influence AI bills being developed in Congress. As of the end of June, the two biggest artificial intelligence political action committees have dropped at least $44 million into 40 House and Senate candidates, per a CNBC analysis of Federal Election Commission data. That's an early taste of how the groups will spend the more than $200 million they've raised on the rest of primary season and into the general election, according to fundraising totals provided by groups. The spending by the burgeoning AI industry makes it an increasingly powerful player in the Washington influence space. The companies -- through their PACs -- are setting themselves up to shape how the first national legislation to regulate AI use takes form. Brad Carson, who heads Public First Action, a nonprofit organization with several PACs, said he's seen more bills introduced and discussion around AI legislation, especially as concerns about the capabilities and risks of powerful AI models like Mythos and Claude Fable have come into the spotlight. While any legislation is unlikely to cross the finish line this year, given the limited number of days lawmakers are in session, both parties have signaled AI will continue to be a priority in coming years. "They have a lot of benefits. They have a lot of dangers. And you can't just release them into the wild with no government concern," Carson told CNBC. "Everybody from the right to the left, from pro-Trump to anti-Trump recognizes that." Josh Vlasto, co-leader of Leading the Future, said coming up with the right regulatory structure is critical for lawmakers. "It is so important that we do this now and urgently, because it is still the early innings of the technology, but it is being adopted quickly, at scale," he told CNBC. The overwhelming number of candidates supported by both PACs have won their primaries. Of the 28 candidates Leading the Future has backed, 25 have won their primaries, two have yet to face their elections and only one -- Jesse Jackson Jr. -- lost. The group also opposed Alex Bores, who lost the Democratic primary in New York's 12th Congressional District. Public First Action has backed candidates in 11 races. With the exception of Bores, every candidate it has supported has won. Carson said the group plans to spend in 50-60 races by the end of the midterms. The playbook AI companies are using isn't a new one. In the 2024 elections, crypto-backed PAC Fairshake dropped an eye-popping $200 million into elections, supporting pro-crypto candidates on either side of the aisle. The result: A major bill on stablecoins became law, and significant progress was made on a rules-of-the-road digital assets bill favored by major crypto companies like Coinbase and Ripple. So far, Leading the Future has spent more than $24 million on primary races through the end of June, according to data filed with the Federal Election Commission. The group said it raised $125 million by the end of 2025, in part from donors including private equity firm Andreessen Horowitz, Open AI co-founder Greg Brockman, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, SV Angel founder Ron Conway and AI software company Perplexity. Public First Action, which launched last year, has spent $20 million so far, and it announced last month it had raised $80 million through the end of June. The group received $20 million from Anthropic, although the amount is restricted to educating the public on AI policy and not for political purposes, per a spokesman for the PAC. Pubic First Action doesn't disclose its donors; Anthropic disclosed its own donation. But Carson said the group has received donations from employees of OpenAI, Google, DeepMind and X.

What AI companies want for their midterm millions

AI companies and their backers are pouring hundreds of millions into the 2026 US midterms through super PACs, led by Leading the Future (funded by a16z's Andreessen and Horowitz and OpenAI's Greg Brockman) and the newer Innovation Council Action. Their consistent goal: a single national AI framework that preempts state-by-state regulation, and defeating lawmakers who push tougher rules. The push follows the Senate stripping a federal preemption provision, and it raises "dark money" concerns from watchdogs, though the industry is not monolithic (Anthropic's contribution is restricted to policy education). AI companies and their backers are pouring vast sums into the 2026 US midterms through super PACs. The spending runs into the hundreds of millions across the sector, CNBC reports, and their central demand is remarkably consistent. They want a single national framework for AI, not a patchwork of state laws. The industry argues that 50 different regimes would slow development and hand an edge to China. The flagship vehicle is Leading the Future, a super PAC network launched in 2025. Andreessen Horowitz co-founders Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz reportedly gave $25m each, alongside OpenAI president Greg Brockman. The group backs candidates who support what it calls a "responsible national framework" and opposes those who undermine it. It has already spent tens of millions across races from Texas and Georgia to Illinois and Montana. It is not alone, with a newer pro-deregulation group, Innovation Council Action, pledging around $100m. Its reported donors span crypto and AI money, from the Winklevoss twins to Elon Musk's xAI orbit. Why the money is flowing now The timing is not random. Washington tried and failed to freeze state AI laws, with the Senate stripping a preemption provision by 99 votes to 1 before the bill was signed. Having lost that fight in Congress, the industry is taking it to the ballot box. The push mirrors White House efforts to trade state preemption for federal online-safety rules, a deal that has yet to land. States, meanwhile, are moving the other way, introducing well over a thousand AI bills in 2025 alone. That gap between a stalled federal approach and a busy statehouse season is exactly what the money aims to close. Not every AI firm plays it the same way The industry is not a monolith on regulation. Anthropic reportedly gave $20m, but restricted to educating the public on AI policy rather than political campaigning, and it has argued governments should be able to block dangerous AI. That split matters, because "pro-AI" money is not uniformly anti-rules. Microsoft's Brad Smith has separately complained the US regulates AI with no clear rules at all, a vacuum this spending would help fill on industry terms. The democracy question Critics see something more troubling than ordinary lobbying. Watchdog groups have branded the wave "dark money" and warned of corporations trying to buy favourable regulation before the technology is understood. Supporters counter that political spending is legal, disclosed in part, and no different from other industries defending their interests. The clash is sharpened by a public already wary of AI, evident in the grassroots revolts blocking data-centre projects. What the money buys, in the end, is not just ads but a frame, that AI rules should be national, light, and set with the industry in the room. Whether voters accept that frame is the test these millions are designed to pass.