AI political groups spent $78.5 million as rival camps clashed, CNBC finds

AI investors set out to copy cryptocurrency’s electoral playbook. Instead, rival AI-policy camps have spent millions fighting over which candidates should shape the rules. A CNBC analysis published October 27 found about $78.5 million in federal candidate spending through October 20, 2026, with nearly three-quarters going to primaries rather than the general election.

The analysis counted Federal Election Commission disclosures of independent expenditures—spending to support or oppose congressional candidates—from committees aligned with each camp. It excluded state races and nonprofit advocacy spending. The total therefore measures a defined slice of AI political activity, not every dollar companies and their allies have put into influencing policy.

The divide is not simply innovation versus regulation. Both camps favor AI development and some guardrails. Leading the Future’s network favors faster deployment and lighter, more uniform rules, opposing a patchwork of state regulation. Its rivals favor stronger safeguards and more room for states to act. Their competing candidate choices put those differences into election spending.

One New York primary absorbed $23.3 million

Leading the Future built a cross-party structure: Think Big supports Democrats, while American Mission supports Republicans. The network’s co-leader Josh Vlasto had worked for Fairshake, the crypto political network, in the previous election cycle. Early results included Republican primary victories for three candidates American Mission supported with more than $500,000 each.

New York’s 12th District Democratic primary exposed the competing financial forces. Think Big spent $8.3 million trying to defeat Alex Bores, a state assemblymember who authored major AI safety legislation. Jobs and Democracy PAC spent about $15 million supporting him, while allied safety groups added millions more.

Those two PACs alone spent a combined $23.3 million, about 40% of the rival camps’ nationwide primary spending, CNBC calculated. Bores lost to Micah Lasher, 39% to 35%. The result gave Think Big its desired outcome, but the spending figures do not establish how much the advertising determined voters’ choices.

The rivalry carries into November

Florida’s 25th District now puts candidates backed by the opposing networks head-to-head. Think Big spent $310,000 supporting Democrat Jared Moskowitz during the primary. Defending Our Values, which favors stricter safeguards and state authority, spent almost $857,000 supporting Republican Scott Singer and another $740,000 opposing one of his primary rivals. Moskowitz and Singer now face each other in the general election.

Safeguards-focused Guardrails Alliance also reported spending $412,500 apiece against Republican House candidates Jay Feely in Arizona and Aaron Flint in Montana. Both had benefited from Leading the Future-aligned primary spending. Together, those two expenditures account for more than one-sixth of the safeguards camp’s general-election opposition spending.

Corporate backing requires a separate distinction. Anthropic committed $20 million to Public First Action in February and another $20 million in July. The company says its money is restricted to policy and public education and cannot fund candidate elections. Separately funded super PACs tied to Public First Action have spent millions pursuing similar policy priorities.