A short, neutral briefing on AI regulation, elections, and political spending, updated as news warrants.
Transformer's FEC tracker reports $55.65M in AI-focused super-PAC spending on 2026 candidates — $23.07M classified as pro-innovation, $32.58M as pro-safety.
Why this mattersAI-focused political spending is now spread across dozens of congressional races, but the amount spent in a race does not by itself show whether that spending determined the result.
Read the briefing →The House voted 417–3 to pass the Ratepayer Protection Act, the first federal bill to take on data-center electricity costs and who pays for the infrastructure they create.
Why this mattersData centers have moved from a largely local permitting and infrastructure issue into federal AI policy. Electricity costs, grid expansion, and who pays for new infrastructure are increasingly part of the political debate around AI development.
Delaware held the cycle's final statewide primary: Sen. Chris Coons and AG Kathy Jennings won renomination, five sitting legislators lost, and every recount we were tracking — in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Indiana — is now closed. No AI PAC money was involved.
Why this mattersRegular statewide primary season is over, which fixes the November field the AI super PACs will be spending into. Nothing in those election results changed the spending total, but it closes every recount and court case the tracker had open and marks the shift from primary-stage money to general-election money — the remaining changes before November should be certifications, litigation, withdrawals and special elections rather than new nominations.
Senate negotiators are discussing a federal AI “duty of care” that could require advanced-model developers to mitigate major known risks — and possibly preempt state rules.
Why this mattersThe negotiations combine two major AI-policy debates: what safety obligations advanced-model developers should face, and how much authority states should retain under a federal framework.
A big September results night: Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee and Providence Mayor Brett Smiley both lost primaries, Chris Pappas and John Sununu set up New Hampshire's Senate race, and a Massachusetts recount stayed open. No AI PAC spending in any of these races.
Why this mattersNone of these contests drew AI PAC money, so the spending totals are unchanged — but the pattern matters for what comes next. A sitting governor lost a primary for the first time nationally since 2018, a big-city mayor and a state Senate majority whip both fell, and two races are still being decided by recounts and a state supreme court. That is the volatile incumbent environment AI-aligned super PACs are now spending into as they move down-ballot.
Persis Yu ousted the Massachusetts Senate majority whip 51%–49%, and another state Senate primary came down to 3 votes. Neither race drew AI PAC money.
Why this mattersNeither race drew AI PAC money, so this doesn't move the spending totals — but two Massachusetts Senate leaders being toppled (or nearly toppled) in one night is the clearest sign yet that state-legislative incumbency is unusually fragile this cycle, the same environment AI PACs like Meta's American Technology Excellence Project have begun testing at the state level.
Alaska certified its primary after withdrawals and a disqualification reshuffled every statewide November field — including a Libertarian lifted from eighth place into the House race. No AI PAC spending involved.
Why this mattersThe Alaska uncertainty the tracker had been following for weeks is now largely resolved: Heikes advances for Senate, McDermott unexpectedly advances for House, and English replaces the disqualified Taylor for governor. None of it changes AI PAC totals, but it's a reminder that top-four systems can produce November fields that look nothing like primary night.
Alaska's final scheduled count put Democrat David Leslie 104 votes up for the last Senate slot, while a gubernatorial withdrawal reshuffled the November field. No AI PAC money in any Alaska race.
Why this mattersThe fourth-place Senate race we had been watching flip for more than a week has finally stopped moving — Leslie +104 is outside plausible recount movement, though results stay unofficial until Aug 31. The bigger remaining variable is additional Alaska withdrawals, which can still reshape the governor and House general-election fields before Monday's deadline.
Eric Hafner — currently serving a federal prison sentence — advanced to Alaska's November House ballot after a withdrawal. No AI PAC spending in the race.
Why this mattersThe race has no AI PAC money, but the ballot-access drama is a useful reminder that even well-designed tracker assumptions can be upended by candidate withdrawals and eligibility fights.
Darline Graham won South Carolina's Republican Senate runoff. Everton Blair won Georgia's 13th District special-election runoff with 53.95% of the vote. In Oklahoma, N'Kiyla “Jasmine” Thomas won the Democratic Senate nomination and will face Republican Kevin Hern in November.
Why this mattersThe results set the general-election fields in several races being followed for their connections to AI-focused political spending.
FEC-verified AI spending on candidates hit $55.14M, with pro-safety PACs holding a roughly $10M lead — nearly all of it from the NY-12 race.
Why this mattersTwo months ago the conventional read was that industry money would swamp pro-regulation candidates. By dollar volume, the opposite happened — pro-safety PACs continue to outspend pro-innovation by nearly $10M across the cycle.
Across 18 states voting between late July and late August, every AI-backed candidate the tracker follows advanced. The one loss: Mallory McMorrow, the candidate running hardest on AI policy, in Michigan's Senate primary.
Why this mattersThe pattern from June holds — AI PAC money keeps landing on candidates who were already favored, so the win rate says more about targeting than about persuasion. McMorrow is the more interesting data point: the candidate who campaigned hardest on AI policy lost a marquee Senate primary in which AI PACs never made a serious independent-expenditure play.
Colorado's AI Act approached its June 30 full-compliance deadline.
Why this mattersColorado is the first real test of whether state-level AI regulation can be enforced in practice. How companies respond here will set the pattern for other states.
AI PAC-backed candidates went 18 for 20 in resolved primaries — but the losses were telling: Jesse Jackson Jr. fell despite $1.43M in support, and the industry lost NY-12, the race it spent most to win.
Why this mattersThe 18-2 record looks impressive but requires honest context. Most winners were incumbents or heavily favored establishment candidates in safe seats — the AI money backed likely winners, not created upsets. The one race where the outcome was genuinely contested and the spending genuinely decisive — NY-12 — went against the AI industry's target. Jackson Jr.'s loss in IL-02 is the strongest counter-example: $1.43M of pro-innovation money failed outright.
Micah Lasher beat Alex Bores 39%–35% in NY-12, the most expensive AI race of the cycle at $29.49M. Bores lost even though pro-safety PACs outspent the industry's opposition nearly 3-to-1 — Bloomberg's $10M for Lasher likely mattered more.
Why this mattersThe AI industry intended this race as a warning to candidates who cross it. But Bores came within 4 points despite being massively outspent by Bloomberg on the other side, and the pro-safety PACs actually outspent the pro-innovation opposition. The lesson may be less about AI money's power and more about the limits of outside spending against a well-funded, well-endorsed establishment candidate.
Eleven AI-backed candidates have now advanced, one has lost, and one is pending. Kevin Hern won Oklahoma's GOP Senate primary with $808K of pro-safety spending behind him.
Why this mattersSeveral of these winners (Graham, Hern, Ricketts) were heavily favored incumbents or Trump-endorsed frontrunners in safe seats, where AI PAC money was a small fraction of total spending and not decisive to the outcome. The clearest test of whether AI money actually moves a race remains NY-12 (Bores), decided June 23.
Pro-safety spending for Alex Bores ($6.81M) passed the industry's opposition ($6.31M) in NY-12 — the costliest AI race in the country was breaking against the industry.
Why this mattersThe marquee test of whether AI industry money can defeat a pro-regulation candidate is breaking against the industry.
The first AI-money primaries split: Melissa Bean advanced, Jesse Jackson Jr. lost despite $1.43M behind him, and Valerie Foushee won a razor-thin primary with $1.61M in support.
Why this mattersThe first scorecard on whether AI PAC money actually moves primaries is mixed — at least one heavily backed candidate (Jackson Jr.) lost outright.
The progressive nonprofit Demand Progress launched a tracker focused on Leading the Future's spending.
Why this mattersMore watchdogs are tracking AI political spending as the primaries approach.
Bores alleged a Think Big attack ad made false claims about his Palantir work; Think Big responded by spending another $326K to keep airing it.
Why this mattersAI PAC attack ads often focus on issues far from AI policy to move voters.
American Mission moved into Senate races with roughly $400K for Lindsey Graham and $850K for Kevin Hern — ads about Trump loyalty, not AI.
Why this mattersAI PAC money is expanding into Senate races. As with the House spending, the ads focus on Trump loyalty and other issues — not AI — even though the PAC's goal is shaping federal AI regulation.
AI PAC spending on candidates reached $31.97M, with pro-innovation ahead by about 30% — and $185M+ raised across the ecosystem but not yet spent.
Why this mattersThe earlier framing of an even split between the two sides was wrong: anti-regulation spending is ahead by about 30%. Separately, $185M+ has been raised across AI industry PACs and nonprofits — but only $31.97M of that has been spent directly on candidates so far.
At the June 5 NY-12 debate, Bores' opponents turned the AI and crypto money around the race into an attack line against him.
Why this mattersThe support money is now an attack line against Bores, not just an asset.
Michigan's Mallory McMorrow added frontier-model safety review to her Senate platform — the most detailed AI policy agenda of any candidate this cycle.
Why this mattersMcMorrow is one of the few candidates running on AI safety as a core campaign issue rather than treating it as a niche concern — and she's doing it without AI industry PAC money. Her platform is a test of whether AI policy can be a winning electoral message on its own.
Trump signed an AI executive order creating voluntary government review of frontier models' cyber capabilities — stepping back from mandatory approval.
Why this mattersThis is a separate track from the administration's push to preempt state AI laws. It focuses on national security and frontier model cyber capabilities — and notably relies on voluntary industry participation rather than mandatory review.
Leading the Future pledged $2M to Senate races in Louisiana, Montana, and Oklahoma — its first move beyond House primaries.
Why this mattersAI PAC money is moving into Senate races for the first time. Whether the pledged spending materializes in FEC filings over the next two weeks is the thing to watch.
Leading the Future ran ICE-themed attack ads in a North Carolina primary — AI money delivering a non-AI message.
Why this mattersConfirms a pattern already visible in NY-12 against Alex Bores: AI super PAC money is being spent on issues unrelated to AI, using whatever attack lines move voters in a given race.
Defending Our Values picked sides inside a single Republican primary for the first time, opposing Rep. Briscoe Cain while backing his GOP challenger in TX-09.
Why this mattersAI PAC money is now shaping outcomes within Republican primaries, not just between parties. The intra-party split signals AI policy is becoming a defining issue inside the GOP coalition.
Trump cancelled a planned AI safety testing executive order after a clash with a major CEO.
Why this mattersThe clearest victory yet for the industry's anti-regulation push inside the Trump administration. Pre-release federal safety testing of frontier models is off the table for now.
Leading the Future expanded its map into Kentucky's Senate race.
Why this mattersFirst confirmed Senate-level deployment for Leading the Future this cycle, extending the network's reach beyond House primaries into a top-tier 2026 Senate contest.
Crypto and AI super PACs have raised a combined $321M+ this cycle.
Why this mattersAI industry political spending is part of a broader pattern of industry-funded super PACs reshaping American elections. The combined crypto and AI war chest now rivals party leadership spending.
Think Big spent $338K+ supporting Rep. Ritchie Torres in NY-15.
Why this mattersThe AI PAC war in New York is expanding beyond Bores. LTF is no longer just opposing a single AI-safety Democrat — it is also actively spending to protect AI-friendly Democrats in adjacent districts.
The Anthropic–OpenAI rivalry spilled into the midterms, with aligned PACs landing on opposite sides of key races.
Why this mattersNames the two networks tracked on this site as direct rivals rather than parallel efforts, helping explain why some candidates are getting hit from both sides.
The first federal AI content law — targeting nonconsensual deepfake imagery — is now enforceable.
Why this mattersThis is currently the only standalone federal AI law in effect. Everything else, including preemption, safety standards, and export controls, is still being debated.
The Intercept mapped AI and crypto front-group spending across the 2026 midterms.
Why this mattersThe AI industry's political operation is modeled directly on the crypto industry's 2024 playbook: same strategist, same PAC structure, same tactic of running ads that never mention the industry funding them.
Colorado enacted SB 26-189, repealing and reenacting the framework created by its original 2024 AI Act. Most new requirements begin January 1, 2027.
Why this mattersColorado remains an important example of state AI regulation, but the rules companies will prepare for are now substantially different from the framework originally enacted in 2024.
Anthropic gave the House Homeland Security Committee a closed-door briefing on its Mythos Preview model.
Why this mattersCongress is getting classified briefings on what frontier AI models can actually do. The gap between what lawmakers see in these sessions and what the public knows continues to grow.
The Senate Rules Committee advanced a bill requiring disclosure of AI-generated political ads.
Why this mattersIf it passes, every federal campaign would have to label synthetic media in ads. It would be the first national disclosure rule of its kind.
AI industry lobbying hit a record $94M in Q1 2026.
Why this mattersLobbying scale shapes which voices reach lawmakers writing AI rules, and whose concerns don't.
Think Big spent $338K+ supporting Rep. Ritchie Torres in NY-15.
Why this mattersLTF now backs at least 8 Democrats. The group's bipartisan strategy is designed to ensure AI-friendly policy regardless of which party controls Congress.
AI industry PACs and nonprofits have raised $185M+ for 2026 — only a fraction spent on candidates so far.
Why this mattersThe $185M figure is total fundraising across the AI political ecosystem; the $31.97M figure is what has actually been spent influencing specific races. Both are important — and they mean different things.
The EU reached a deal to simplify AI Act compliance rules.
Why this mattersThe EU is adjusting its AI rules before they're fully in force, a sign that even the most comprehensive AI regulatory framework is still being negotiated under industry pressure.
Leading the Future backed five House Democrats.
Why this mattersConfirms AI industry spending is genuinely bipartisan, not just a Republican operation.
The federal AI preemption provision was stripped from the One Big Beautiful Bill after a Senate fight.
Why this mattersThe AI industry's biggest legislative priority failed in Congress. State-level AI regulation, including the Colorado AI Act, the RAISE Act, and the Texas AI governance framework, remains intact.
Jobs and Democracy retracted $1M in opposition spending against Jesse Jackson Jr.
Why this mattersRetracting a million dollars in reported spending is unusual and raises questions about what changed.
Anthropic's $20M donation to Public First is restricted to education work, not elections.
Why this mattersThe figure most often cited as Anthropic's political war chest is, in legal terms, not political money at all.
A new group, Innovation Council Action, surfaced with a Trump-AI scorecard strategy.
Why this mattersAdds another opaque political vehicle to a cycle already dominated by undisclosed spending.
Anthropic employees filed their own PAC, AnthroPAC, with the FEC.
Why this mattersAnthropic now operates two distinct political channels, one nonprofit and one direct-contribution, broadening its policy reach.
Leading the Future-backed candidates won their Texas primaries.
Why this mattersFirst electoral test of the AI industry's federal-and-state spending playbook. The early results favor the industry.
Leading the Future committed $5M to Byron Donalds' Florida governor campaign — its biggest state-level bet yet.
Why this mattersFirst major AI PAC spending in a gubernatorial race. Signals the AI industry's interest in state executive positions. Governors can veto or sign state AI legislation.
Colorado's AI Act — the first broad state AI law — took effect.
Why this mattersSets a benchmark other states are watching, and a target the proposed federal preemption framework would override.
Opposition spending against NY-12's Alex Bores passed $1.1M, making him the AI industry's top target.
Why this mattersA test of whether AI industry money can defeat a sitting state legislator who wrote a major AI safety law.
Public First Action launched with bipartisan leadership.
Why this mattersThe first major attempt to organize an AI-safety political coalition with national reach.
The White House publicly pushed back on Leading the Future despite the network's Trump-donor backing.
Why this mattersThe AI PAC fight doesn't follow clean partisan lines. A group funded by Trump's own donors is drawing White House opposition because it helps elect Democrats too.