I’ll admit it: when I first saw the headline about AI super PACs spending $27 million on a local election, I laughed. Not a polite chuckle. A full, coffee-through-the-nose laugh. Because come on. Twenty-seven million dollars. For a single House race in New York’s 12th district. That’s more than most Senate races get. That’s more than some presidential campaigns spend in entire states. And it’s all about artificial intelligence.
But here’s the thing: after digging into the details, I’m not laughing anymore. I’m actually a little worried. Not about the election itself—I don’t have a horse in that race. But about what this spending spree tells us about the future of AI regulation, and more specifically, about how your job and your productivity tools are about to become a political football.
The New Political Playbook
According to www.theverge.com, a coalition of corporate AI super PACs—backed by names you’d recognize from every chat app, cloud provider, and productivity suite you use—poured $27 million into New York’s 12th congressional district. The target? A relatively obscure Democrat named Alex Bores. The goal? To unseat him, or at least to send a message.
Now, you might be thinking: “Michael, I don’t live in New York. I don’t care about some random House race.” And you’d be right, sort of. But the reason these PACs chose this specific race is what matters. Bores is a Democrat who has been surprisingly vocal about AI regulation. He’s introduced bills that would require transparency in AI training data, mandate bias audits for hiring algorithms, and—this is the kicker—create liability for companies whose AI tools cause harm.
That last part? That’s the one that scares the tech giants. Because right now, if an AI you use at work hallucinates a legal document, or recommends a bad hire, or generates code with a security flaw, the company that made the AI can usually shrug and blame the user. Bores wants to change that. And the super PACs want to make sure he never gets the chance.
The Productivity Connection
Let me connect the dots for you. Because this isn’t just about politics. It’s about the tools you use every day. The AI writing assistant that drafts your emails. The automated scheduling bot that books your meetings. The code completion tool that suggests the next line of your Python script. All of these are built by companies that are terrified of liability.
Here’s a concrete example. I tried out a new AI meeting summarizer last week. It’s great—transcribes everything, highlights action items, even suggests follow-ups. But then I noticed something weird. It kept misattributing who said what. In a meeting with four people, it gave my boss’s ideas to the intern. Twice. When I flagged it to the company, they said, “Oh, that’s a known edge case. We’ll fix it in the next update.” No apology. No liability. Just a shrug.
Under Bores’s proposed legislation, that company would be on the hook for any confusion or missed deadlines caused by that error. And that’s exactly why they’re fighting him so hard. Because if AI tools become legally responsible for their outputs, the entire business model changes. No more “ship now, fix later.” No more “it’s just a beta.” Every productivity tool you use would have to be demonstrably accurate before it touches your workflow.
The $27 Million Math
So how do you stop a politician like Bores? You don’t argue with him on the merits. You don’t propose better legislation. You spend $27 million on attack ads, mailers, and digital campaigns that paint him as a “job killer” who wants to “destroy innovation.” And you hope that voters in one district don’t look too closely at who’s paying for the ads.
According to www.theverge.com, the super PACs are running ads that claim Bores’s AI regulations would “send American jobs overseas” and “kill the next Google before it’s born.” Never mind that Google was built in an era with far more legal certainty than we have now. Never mind that most of the “jobs” these companies are creating are in data labeling and content moderation—roles that are already being automated away.
The real math is simpler. These companies make money by selling you tools that are 80% reliable. That’s good enough for most tasks. But if they have to be 99.9% reliable? That costs billions in R&D, testing, and insurance. $27 million to stop that from happening is a bargain.
What This Means for Your Workday
Let’s get personal. You’re reading this because you care about work productivity. Maybe you’re a project manager who relies on AI to summarize status reports. Maybe you’re a writer who uses AI to brainstorm headlines. Maybe you’re a developer who lives inside an AI-powered IDE.
Now imagine that every one of those tools came with a disclaimer: “We are not responsible for any errors or omissions. Use at your own risk.” That’s essentially the status quo. The companies that build these tools have carefully crafted terms of service that shield them from liability. They can sell you a buggy product, and your only recourse is to stop using it.
Bores’s legislation would flip that. It would say: if you sell an AI tool for professional use, you are responsible for its outputs. That means if an AI scheduling assistant double-books your CEO and your most important client, the company that made the assistant has to make it right. Not just refund your subscription—actually compensate you for the lost business.
I don’t know about you, but that sounds pretty good to me. I’ve lost count of the number of times an AI tool has cost me an hour of work because it hallucinated a fact or misread an instruction. I’d love to have a legal recourse. But the super PACs are betting you’ll never get that chance.
The Bigger Picture
This isn’t just about one election. It’s about a pattern. Tech companies have spent the last decade building a regulatory moat that keeps them from being held accountable for their products. Social media platforms aren’t liable for what users post. Ride-sharing apps aren’t liable for accidents. And now, AI companies want the same protection.
But here’s the thing: the more AI becomes embedded in our work, the more we need accountability. If a human assistant makes a mistake, you can fire them. If an AI assistant makes a mistake, you’re supposed to just deal with it. That’s not sustainable. Not for productivity, not for trust, not for the future of work.
I’m not saying Bores’s legislation is perfect. I haven’t read every line. But I know that the people spending $27 million to stop him aren’t doing it because they care about innovation. They’re doing it because they care about their bottom line. And if you use their products, that bottom line comes out of your productivity.
The Last Word
Here’s my honest take: the next time you open your AI writing assistant, or your automated meeting scheduler, or your code completion tool, take a second to think about who’s really in control. You’re not. The company that built the tool is. And they’re spending millions to make sure it stays that way.
The $27 million question isn’t whether Alex Bores wins or loses. It’s whether we, as users, get to demand better. Because if the super PACs have their way, the answer will be no. And your productivity will keep paying the price.
—Michael Reeves
Originally reported by www.theverge.com. Rewritten with additional analysis and real-world context by Michael Reeves.
