AI Industry Mobilizes to Defeat Alex Bores

A coordinated industry effort led by the super PAC Leading the Future has prioritized defeating New York Assemblymember Alex Bores, the lawmaker who advanced one of the strictest state AI statutes. The PAC reported raising $125 million in 2025 and carried $70 million into 2026, with major backers that include Andreessen Horowitz, Greg Brockman of OpenAI, Joe Lonsdale of Palantir, and startups such as Perplexity. Outside ads frame Bores as linked to Palantirs controversial contracts with ICE; Bores counters that he left Palantir over that work and is backed by many AI researchers and safety groups. "Leadership in AI innovation will define economic growth, national security, and Americas role in the global economy," said Zac Moffatt and Josh Vlasto, two strategists running the PAC.

The operation is structured as an independent expenditure vehicle that buys statewide and district-level advertising, funds targeted messaging, and coordinates with allied advocacy groups pushing for a federal, uniform approach to AI policy. FEC filings and reporting through late 2025 show:

• •$125M raised in 2025 and $70M cash on hand entering 2026.
• •Donor mix that includes venture capital, startup founders, and senior executives rather than broad corporate treasuries.
• •Dual strategy of opposing pro-regulation state candidates while supporting sympathetic federal and state candidates, across party lines.

• •Andreessen Horowitz (VC backer)
• •Greg Brockman (OpenAI co-founder)
• •Joe Lonsdale (Palantir co-founder)
• •Perplexity (AI search startup)

This is not a single campaign story. It is the leading edge of an industry attempt to translate technical stakes into electoral power. The PAC and allied groups explicitly aim to avoid a patchwork of state-by-state rules by pressing for national standards that favor innovation-friendly regulatory frameworks. That strategy matters to practitioners because federal preemption or uniform law could dramatically reduce compliance complexity for product teams, accelerate commercialization timelines, and influence R&D openness.

At the same time, the fight exposes a bifurcation inside the tech community. Many engineers, AI researchers, and safety-aligned donors are contributing to Bores campaign; FEC filings show hundreds of thousands in donations from lab employees and safety groups. The split suggests a growing political realignment where investor and founder priorities can diverge from researchers and operators who prioritize risk mitigation and oversight.

Expect three near-term effects. First, lobbying and political spending at this scale increase the probability that federal AI frameworks will be shaped by industry-preferred guardrails rather than strict oversight. Second, companies will face increased reputational risk when employees, safety communities, or local voters push back on their political spending and contracts. Third, compliance planning should account for either a single federal standard or continued state-level divergence depending on how these races play out.

Monitor subsequent FEC filings and ad buys from Leading the Future, the outcome of the New York primary, and any coordinated pushes for federal preemption legislation such as efforts by Build American AI. For practitioners, track whether industry-backed candidates gain committee seats that oversee technology or commerce, since those placements materially affect rulemaking and enforcement priorities.