AI PACs spent millions trying to shape Congress. Here’s how they fared.

Political groups both supporting and opposing the AI industry spent millions of dollars trying to influence Tuesday’s midterm elections and shape the future of AI regulation. That spending produced mixed results, with some of the most heavily backed candidates losing their races. 

On the industry side, two AI-focused political action committees (PACs) that raised and spent money to influence the elections — American Mission and Building the Future — collectively spent $4.8 million to back South Carolina Senate candidate Darlene Graham, who lost. American Mission is the Republican spending arm of Leading the Future (LTF), a broader political group backed by OpenAI President Greg Brockman and the VC firm Andreessen Horowitz.

American Mission also spent more than $500,000 apiece supporting Republican House candidates Aaron Flint in Montana and Laurie Buckhout in North Carolina, both of whom lost. LTF’s Democratic spending arm, Think Big, had better luck backing Florida Rep. Jared Moskowitz, who won reelection.

Groups advocating for stronger AI safeguards also saw mixed results. Public First, which is backed by Anthropic, supported several Republicans who lost through its affiliated PAC, but had more success backing Democratic candidates. It also contributed $3 million to a PAC supporting California state Sen. Scott Wiener, who was leading his race at the time of publication.

Meanwhile, Guardrails Alliance, a group that has sought to make taking money from AI companies a political liability, spent more than $1 million apiece opposing two candidates who lost: California Rep. Jimmy Gomez and Montana’s Flint. It also spent $300,000 supporting Angela Gonzales-Torres, who defeated Gomez. 

Charlie Blaettler, political director of Guardrails Alliance, had a different theory for why LTF spent comparatively little in the general election.

“Our goal is to make AI money politically toxic,” Blaettler said.

View Bio