AI PACs Spent Millions on Midterms as Voters Rejected Data Centers and Industry-Backed Candidates

Political action committees aligned with the artificial intelligence industry spent heavily in Tuesday's midterm elections — and largely came away with little to show for it, as a broader Democratic wave swept through key races and voters in multiple states moved to block data center construction.

Two pro-industry PACs, American Mission and Building the Future, collectively spent $4.8 million backing South Carolina Senate candidate Darline Graham, who lost. American Mission is the Republican spending arm of Leading the Future (LTF), a political group backed by OpenAI president Greg Brockman and venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.

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

LTF spent $27.38 million in primary contests leading up to Tuesday, including $8 million opposing New York Assembly member Alex Bores, who lost his congressional bid in June. The group told TechCrunch ahead of Election Day that it views primaries as a more effective use of its funds, because spending there can build name recognition and help candidates develop AI policy agendas.

Groups favoring stricter AI oversight also saw uneven outcomes. Public First, backed by Anthropic, supported several Republicans who lost but had more success with Democratic candidates. It contributed $3 million to a PAC supporting California state Sen. Scott Wiener, who was leading his race at the time of publication.

Guardrails Alliance, a group that has sought to make accepting AI industry money a political liability, spent more than $1 million apiece opposing two candidates who lost — Gomez and Flint — and contributed $300,000 supporting Angela Gonzales-Torres, who defeated Gomez.

Data centers proved to be a potent issue on their own. Voters fiercely rejected industry-backed candidates and backed resolutions to halt data center construction in key races across the nation, dealing a significant blow to a sector that has been expanding rapidly to meet AI computing demand.

Charlie Blaettler, political director of Guardrails Alliance, offered a theory for why LTF spent comparatively little in general election contests. "They don't want their money to become an issue in these elections," he told TechCrunch, drawing a parallel to AIPAC's roughly $30 million intervention in a Michigan Senate Democratic primary. "AIPAC became the story in that race," Blaettler said.

Blaettler also pointed to deep public skepticism toward the technology sector's political involvement. "We know people hate AI billionaires. They hate the people running these companies. They're very distrustful and disgusted by the political spending and lobbying that the tech industry does," he said. "If they spend in a competitive race, they would just become an enormous liability for their candidates."

The central policy question animating both sides is whether Congress should establish a national AI regulatory framework that overrides state laws, or whether states should retain authority to impose their own safeguards. LTF favors federal preemption; Guardrails Alliance opposes it.

Neither side appears ready to stand down. LTF told TechCrunch it plans to continue spending in the 2028 elections, while Guardrails Alliance has pledged to keep opposing candidates who accept AI industry backing. "Our goal is to make AI money politically toxic," Blaettler said.

Disclaimer