$125M War Chest Reveals AI's Real Regulation Battle Lines
What happens when the AI industry's biggest players can't agree on whether their own technology needs adult supervision?
We're watching it play out in real-time through a $1.55 million proxy war over one New York congressional seat. Alex Bores, sponsor of the RAISE Act requiring AI safety disclosures, has become the unlikely center of Silicon Valley's most expensive ideological split.
<> "Workers at OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind support Public First over Leading the Future" - Carson, Public First Action/>
The battle lines are fascinatingly clear. Leading the Future, armed with $125 million and donors like Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI's Greg Brockman, and Palantir's Joe Lonsdale, dropped $1.1 million attacking Bores. Their message? The RAISE Act threatens innovation.
Meanwhile, Public First Action, backed by Anthropic's $20 million donation, countered with $450,000 supporting Bores. They're betting transparency wins elections.
The Money Trail Tells the Real Story
But here's where it gets interesting. Look at the individual employee donations:
- Anthropic employees: $168,500 to Bores
- Alphabet/Google/DeepMind: $58,000
- OpenAI employees: $57,000
- Palantir: $33,000
- Microsoft: $23,000
- Meta: $16,000
Notice something? OpenAI's president funds the anti-regulation PAC, while OpenAI's employees donate to the pro-regulation candidate. That's not a coincidence—that's a revolt.
The Technical Stakes Hidden in Plain Sight
The RAISE Act isn't some vague "AI ethics" gesture. It mandates specific disclosures:
- Risk assessments for frontier models
- Documented mitigation strategies
- Public reporting of serious misuse incidents
- Transparency in testing procedures
For developers, this means automated logging systems, compliance dashboards, and audit trails. Basically, treating AI deployment like we treat nuclear power—with paperwork and oversight.
Anthropic sees this as competitive advantage. They're already safety-obsessed. Mandating everyone else follow suit? Chef's kiss.
<> Leading the Future accuses Bores' backers of representing an "extreme ideological dark money network" that prioritizes control over innovation./>
Venture capital firms like A16z see regulatory compliance as innovation tax. More reporting means higher operational costs, slower deployments, and advantage to incumbents who can afford compliance teams.
Hot Take: This Isn't About Safety vs Innovation
Everyone's missing the real story. This isn't safety advocates versus innovation champions. It's two different business models fighting for regulatory capture.
Anthropic's constitutional AI approach requires transparent safety protocols. Mandating competitors adopt similar frameworks doesn't hurt them—it validates their entire product strategy.
Meanwhile, "move fast and break things" companies need regulatory flexibility to iterate quickly. The RAISE Act's disclosure requirements could expose competitive advantages or highlight risks they'd rather keep internal.
The employee donation patterns confirm this. Workers building the actual systems understand the risks. Executives managing investor returns understand the market dynamics.
$125 million in PAC funding suggests the stakes are enormous. Not just for one congressional race, but for the entire regulatory framework that will govern AI development.
Bores might win or lose in New York's 12th district. But the real winner will be whichever faction shapes federal AI policy for the next decade. With $70 million still in Leading the Future's war chest, expect this battle to spread far beyond New York.
The question isn't whether AI needs regulation. The question is which companies get to write the rules.
