I spent last Tuesday night refreshing a single county election board's website like it was the Super Bowl. Not for a presidential race. Not for a Senate seat. For a Democratic primary in New York's 12th congressional district. And I wasn't alone. According to www.theverge.com, corporate AI super PACs dumped a staggering $27 million into this one local election. Twenty-seven million dollars. For a House seat. In a primary. That's more than most Senate candidates spend in an entire general election cycle.
Let that sink in for a second. The same companies that are laying off thousands of workers while simultaneously begging for government subsidies spent more money on a single race than the median American household will earn in 500 lifetimes. Why? Because the outcome of this election could fundamentally reshape how artificial intelligence is regulated in this country. And these companies are terrified of regulation.
The Backup Candidate Who Became a Lightning Rod
The race pitted incumbent Jerry Nadler, a 30-year Washington veteran, against challenger Alex Bores. Bores is a state assemblyman who, by all accounts, was considered a long shot. He's young, he's progressive on tech issues, and he actually understands how algorithms work. That last part is apparently terrifying to the AI industry.
According to www.theverge.com, the super PACs backing Bores raised and spent money at a pace that shocked even seasoned campaign finance watchers. The bulk of the cash came from two groups with innocuous-sounding names like "Americans for Responsible Innovation" and "Tech for the Future." But follow the money, and you end up at the doorstep of every major AI company you can name. OpenAI. Google. Microsoft. Anthropic. They all wrote checks. Big ones.
The irony is thick enough to cut with a GPU. These are the same companies that spent 2024 and 2025 publishing earnest white papers about "responsible AI development" and "democratizing access." They hired diversity consultants. They formed ethics boards. They made grand promises about safety. Then, when a state assemblyman who actually wants to regulate them gets close to a seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee—the committee with jurisdiction over AI policy—they open the checkbook wide.
What $27 Million Actually Buys You
I covered the 2020 presidential primaries. I've seen what money does to elections. But this was different. This wasn't just TV ads and mailers. This was a full-spectrum operation. Bores's campaign had a data operation that rivaled some Senate campaigns I've seen. They had field organizers in every precinct. They had a digital ad buy that saturated every social media platform. They even had a podcast. A podcast!
Meanwhile, Nadler's campaign looked like it was running in 1998. He had a few staffers. Some yard signs. The occasional union endorsement. It was like watching a tank roll up to a bicycle race.
Here's the thing: Nadler is no Luddite. He's been a reliable vote for tech industry positions on copyright and internet freedom. But he's also old-school. He believes in oversight. He's chaired hearings that made tech CEOs squirm. And apparently, that's enough to trigger a $27 million response.
The Real Stakes: Regulation vs. Self-Regulation
Let me be blunt: the AI industry does not want regulation. They say they do. They publish position papers calling for "smart regulation." But what they mean is "regulation that doesn't apply to us." They want a federal preemption law that would override state-level AI safety bills. They want liability shields so that if their models hallucinate and cause real-world harm, they can't be sued. They want to be the ones writing the rules.
Bores, on the other hand, co-sponsored a bill in the New York State Assembly that would have required companies to audit their AI systems for bias and safety before deployment. It didn't pass. But the fact that he was willing to propose it made him Enemy Number One.
I talked to a former Google lobbyist off the record last week. He told me, "The industry isn't afraid of Nadler. He's predictable. He'll hold hearings, make headlines, and then cut a deal. Bores is different. He actually knows the tech. He'd ask questions we couldn't answer. And that's terrifying."
The Working Professional's Stake in This
You might be reading this thinking, "Cool, another story about rich people in Washington. What does this have to do with my job?"
Everything.
The outcome of this race—and races like it across the country—will determine whether AI becomes a tool that augments your work or a weapon that replaces you. The companies spending this money are the same ones shipping AI tools that write code, generate marketing copy, analyze legal documents, and even diagnose medical images. They're selling these tools to your boss as a way to "increase productivity." Translation: do more with fewer people.
I've been using AI tools in my own work for about a year now. I use them for research, for brainstorming, for catching mistakes. They're genuinely useful. But I've also seen the dark side. I've seen companies quietly lay off entire content teams and replace them with generative AI. I've seen customer service departments reduced to skeleton crews because an LLM can handle 90% of inquiries. I've seen graphic designers lose their contracts because a prompt is cheaper than a person.
The AI industry knows that regulation is the only thing standing between them and total disruption of the labor market. They know that if they're forced to prove their systems are safe, to disclose training data, to allow third-party audits, it slows them down. And in tech, speed is everything.
The Nadler Campaign's Counterattack
Nadler didn't just roll over. His campaign hit back hard. They ran ads painting Bores as a puppet of Silicon Valley billionaires. "Who's really running this campaign?" one ad asked, showing a photo of Sam Altman and Satya Nadella. It was effective. The line that stuck with me: "Alex Bores says he'll regulate AI. But his campaign is powered by the very companies he claims he'll oversee."
Bores's camp had a response ready: "We're not taking money from corporations. We're taking it from PACs that represent the interests of workers and consumers who want safe AI." It's a clever dodge, but it's also disingenuous. The money is coming from the same place, just laundered through a few more layers.
What the Election Results Tell Us
As of this writing, the race is still too close to call. Nadler has a narrow lead, but there are thousands of absentee ballots yet to be counted. Regardless of who wins, one thing is clear: the AI industry has signaled that they will spend whatever it takes to shape the regulatory environment.
This is not a one-off. There are already super PACs forming to target similar races in California, Virginia, and Texas. The 2026 midterms are going to be a referendum on AI regulation, whether voters realize it or not.
My Take: The Industry's Betrayal of Its Own Principles
I've been covering tech for 15 years. I've seen the industry promise to "make the world a better place" while simultaneously exploiting every loophole in the tax code. I've seen them champion "openness" while building walled gardens. But this feels different.
The AI industry was founded on a promise: that artificial intelligence would be developed responsibly, with human well-being at the center. The people who started OpenAI, DeepMind, and Anthropic genuinely believed they were building something that would benefit humanity. They wrote papers about safety. They advocated for regulation. They warned about the risks.
And now? They're spending $27 million to stop a state assemblyman from asking questions.
That's not responsible innovation. That's regulatory capture. And it's happening in broad daylight.
What You Can Do
I'm not going to tell you to call your representative. You've heard that before. But I will tell you to pay attention. The next time your company rolls out an AI tool that's supposed to "save you time," ask questions. What data is it trained on? Who audits it for bias? What happens when it makes a mistake? How many jobs is it replacing?
And when you see candidates talking about tech policy, don't let them get away with vague promises. Ask them who they're taking money from. Ask them what their plan is for the workers who will be displaced. Ask them if they've ever actually used an AI tool for more than five minutes.
Because here's the truth: the future of work is being decided right now, not in some distant future, but in primary elections in New York and California and Texas. And the people with the deepest pockets are betting that you won't notice until it's too late.
I noticed. And now you have too.
The Bottom Line
The $27 million spent on this one race is a down payment. The AI industry is building a political machine that will rival the pharmaceutical industry, the defense industry, and the financial sector. They have the money, the talent, and the narrative control to shape policy for a generation.
The question is: will we let them?
I don't have the answer. But I know that the first step is understanding what's happening. And now you do.
Originally reported by www.theverge.com. Rewritten with additional analysis and real-world context by Jennifer O'Donnell.
