Our Take
AI companies have discovered that super PACs let them fight each other using deniable corporate money, without the legal appearance of coordination—a loophole that makes campaign finance law look quaint.
Why it matters
As AI regulation moves through Congress, the biggest players are now using dark money and super PACs to shape policy through electoral warfare rather than direct lobbying. This matters because it signals how the industry will compete over the next decade of rule-making.
Do this week
Policy strategists: map which super PACs back your key regulatory stakeholders before the midterms, so you understand whose political interests align with your compliance roadmap.
Anthropic funds the opposition to OpenAI's political machine
Anthropic donated $20 million to Public First Action, a bipartisan super PAC network backing New York congressional candidate Alex Bores. Bores, whose campaign centers on AI regulation, challenged Leading the Future (per The Verge)—a $100 million pro-AI super PAC funded by Palantir's Joe Lonsdale, Andreessen Horowitz, and OpenAI's Greg Brockman—to an in-person debate before the June 23rd primary. Leading the Future declined to comment.
The debate challenge itself is unlikely to happen. But the pattern it reveals is not: AI companies are using super PACs as proxies to attack rivals without direct coordination. Leading the Future, once viewed as a vehicle for the broader AI industry, became synonymous with OpenAI's interests after Meta launched its own AI-focused super PACs. Anthropic's counter-move crystallized the dynamic. Public First is now read as "Anthropic's super PAC," while LTF is shorthand for "the Marc Andreessen-Greg Brockman-Joe Lonsdale-backed super PAC." The candidate is almost secondary.
Campaign finance law forbids super PACs from coordinating directly with candidates on messaging or ad buys. But the law says nothing about companies using super PACs to attack their corporate competitors by proxy. Bores can legally distance himself from Anthropic's spending on his behalf while using rhetoric that aligns with Anthropic's policy stance.
Political money is following the AI consolidation fight
This is not just corporate tribalism. OpenAI and Anthropic have opposing visions of how AI should be regulated—safety-first versus capability-first, broadly speaking. Rather than fighting in Congress, they are now fighting in elections, where money moves faster than legislation and attribution is murky.
The super PAC arms race is already accelerating. A new political advocacy nonprofit called Innovation Council Action, run by Trump's former adviser Taylor Budowich and already holding a $100 million war chest, is launching with backing from David Sacks (former White House special adviser on AI). Unlike super PACs, this nonprofit operates as "dark money" and does not have to disclose its donors. It will focus explicitly on promoting Trump's AI agenda, signaling that the Republican party now has its own AI industry faction.
Meanwhile, traditional industries are organizing against prediction markets, another AI-adjacent policy fight. The gaming industry, futures markets, and sports betting operators have all begun opposing prediction market deregulation through a "watchdog" group called FairPredicts, which launched a six-figure ad buy timed to a Senate Commerce Committee hearing.
The pattern is clear: policy fights in tech are increasingly waged through electoral vehicles, not through direct lobbying or expert testimony. Campaign finance law was written before AI companies could afford to field their own political machines.
Watch the money, not just the candidates
If you are tracking AI regulation at the federal or state level, identify which super PACs and dark money groups are backing each candidate on your watchlist. OpenAI's backing of pro-capability candidates through Leading the Future, Anthropic's backing of pro-regulation candidates through Public First, and Trump's backing through Innovation Council Action now form a map of how the industry is betting on the midterms.
Pay attention to candidate positioning on stablecoins and prediction markets as well. The Clarity Act sailed through the Senate Banking Committee on a 15-9 vote despite opposition from police unions, labor unions, and traditional banks. The bill's fate will depend on how much electoral pressure each side can mount in the House and on the Senate floor. Super PACs will likely make this decision, not arguments about policy.