The 2026 midterm elections are shaping up to be unlike any campaign cycle before. This time, the battlefield isn’t just about healthcare, immigration, or the economy; this is about who writes the rules regarding artificial intelligence.
An unprecedented push now puts over $100 million into super PACs by the power players in Silicon Valley to stop state governments from regulating AI. Why? Heavy-handed rules, they say, could crush American innovation and gift China the keys to technological dominance.
First out of the gate is a super PAC dubbed Leading the Future, which has already lined up $100 million in commitments. The makeup of that funding is weighted heavily: venture capital giant Andreessen Horowitz is contributing $50 million, with another $50 million coming from Greg Brockman and his wife Anna.
Brockman is a prominent figure within the AI world and is joined on the roster of the super PAC by fellow tech luminaries such as venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, investor Ron Conway, and AI startup Perplexity.
Their mission statement is blunt: reshape the political landscape around innovation policy. The group isn’t picking partisan sides; they’re targeting any politician from any party that moves to implement strict state-level AI regulations.
Tech Titans vs. Public First: The Clash Over AI Regulation in America
Meta, too, has joined the fight, supporting organizations like California Leads along with Google and venture firm SV Angel. The approach covers pivotal states, such as New York, California, Colorado, Illinois, and Ohio, in which messaging campaigns target state-level legislators and governors, not their federal peers.
The tech industry’s concern centers around what they term a “patchwork” of conflicting state laws. In 2025 alone, state lawmakers across America filed more than 1,000 AI-related bills. California Governor Gavin Newsom signed safety mandates for large AI companies. Colorado passed anti-discrimination rules affecting how AI can be used in hiring and credit decisions.
New York developed its own AI safety framework, though Governor Kathy Hochul is still refining the details.
Centrists, Hawks, and Doomers Battle for America’s Digital Future
The Brockmans have characterized their stance as “AI centrism”-backing federal privacy and safety guardrails, while keeping regulations minimal for most developers and open-source models. “Neither the doomers nor the wild-west crowd feels right,” they said.
The single theme pounded home by the advertising message of the PAC is that America must “spend big and build fast” if it wants to outcompete China in the AI race. Its first major ad campaign, backed by $10 million, warns that the real AI risk isn’t the technology itself-it’s losing global leadership to rivals.
Not everyone in politics or tech is buying the industry’s narrative. A bipartisan group called Public First launched this week with a very different agenda. It is led by former Republican Congressman Chris Stewart and former Democratic Congressman Brad Carson, and plans to raise $50 million to push for stronger AI oversight.
“We need export controls on China and multi-level AI oversight,” Carson said. “This is beyond parties. Governments at all levels need a say in AI’s risks.”
The group draws support from effective-altruism aligned organizations, often dismissed by tech insiders as “AI doomers” who overstate the technology’s dangers.
State Regulations Under Fire as Big Tech Flexes Political Muscle
Leading the Future has already drawn its first blood politically, targeting New York Assemblyman Alex Bores, a Democrat and former Palantir engineer who helped draft his state’s AI safety bill. Bores fired back, suggesting the PAC’s opposition proves he’s hitting the right nerve: “They’re terrified of someone who knows their business. That’s them telling on themselves.”
But this political fight doesn’t fit neatly into traditional partisan categories. Former President Donald Trump’s team has discussed federal pre-emption of state AI rules, which has irked some Republican governors. Others, like Steve Bannon, have accused tech billionaires of trying to buy election outcomes.
Congress has yet to pass sweeping federal legislation on AI, leaving a vacuum states have raced to fill. Big donors worry the ensuing patchwork will strangle an industry projected to grow from $200 billion today to $1 trillion by 2030.
Regulators counter that, without proper oversight, America faces serious risks: algorithmic bias, deepfake manipulation, massive job displacement, and unchecked commercial AI deployment.
As 2026 approaches, one thing is certain: this election cycle will test whether money or democratic governance shapes AI’s future. Both sides believe they are fighting for America’s technological soul-and neither can afford to lose.
