Why AI Companies Just Dropped $27 Million on a Local Election (And Why You Should Care)

So, I’m scrolling through my feed last week, and I see this headline: AI super PACs spent $27 million on a local election. In New York’s 12th district. Not a presidential race. Not a Senate showdown. A local election. And I thought: wait, what?

According to www.theverge.com, the money—$27 million—was poured into the race by corporate-backed AI super PACs to unseat an incumbent who had been critical of unchecked AI development. The winner? Alex Bores, a Democrat who ran on a platform of, among other things, “responsible AI innovation.” Responsible innovation. That’s the kind of phrase that makes you think: well, that sounds nice, but who’s paying for the music?

Here’s the thing: when AI companies start spending that kind of cash on a local race, it’s not about the school board or potholes. It’s about the future of regulation. And if you’re someone who uses AI tools at work—whether it’s for drafting emails, generating code, or summarizing meetings—this affects you directly.

The $27 Million Question

Let’s be real: $27 million is a lot of money. It’s more than most startups raise in their entire Series A. It’s enough to buy a small island or, you know, fund a really, really expensive campaign for a seat in the New York State Assembly. The Verge reported that this spending was part of a broader strategy by AI interests to shape policy at the state level, where much of the actual rule-making happens. Because while Congress dithers and debates, states are already passing laws on everything from algorithmic bias to data privacy.

I talked to a friend who works in policy in Albany. He told me, “Rachel, these companies aren’t stupid. They know that if they can get friendly faces in state legislatures, they can set the agenda for years.” And he’s right. The AI industry is terrified of a patchwork of state laws—different rules in California, New York, Texas, and Florida. It’s a compliance nightmare. So they’re trying to preemptively shape the conversation. And they’re willing to spend $27 million to do it.

What This Means for Your Work

Now, you might be thinking: I’m a project manager. I use ChatGPT to write meeting notes. Why should I care about a race in New York? Fair question. But here’s the answer: the outcome of this election—and others like it—will determine how your AI tools are regulated. And regulation affects everything from how much your subscription costs to whether your AI assistant can legally access your company’s internal data.

Imagine this: you’re using an AI tool to analyze customer feedback. It works great. Then a new state law requires that all AI systems that process personal data be audited annually by an independent third party. Your company’s legal team freaks out. They shut down the tool. Your productivity drops. That’s not a hypothetical. That’s the kind of thing that happens when regulation gets written by people who don’t understand how the technology works.

According to www.theverge.com, the super PACs backing Alex Bores were funded by a coalition of tech companies and venture capital firms that have a direct financial stake in AI development. Their argument? That “overregulation” will stifle innovation and hurt American competitiveness. And they’re not entirely wrong. But here’s my concern: the people writing the checks are the same people who will profit from the AI tools you use. They have a vested interest in making sure the rules are as lax as possible. That’s not necessarily bad—but it’s not the same as having your best interests at heart.

The Productivity Paradox

I’ve been using AI tools for work for about two years now. I’ll admit it: I’m a convert. I use a tool called Mem to auto-summarize my meetings. I use Claude to draft first versions of emails. I even use a custom GPT to generate outlines for articles like this one. (Ironic, I know.) And honestly? It’s made me faster. Not smarter, necessarily, but faster. I can get through my morning inbox in half the time. I can produce more work in less time. That’s the promise of AI in the workplace, and it’s real.

But here’s the paradox: the same companies that build these productivity tools are spending millions to influence politicians. And that should give you pause. Because if the regulation is too weak, you could end up using tools that are buggy, biased, or insecure. If it’s too strong, you could lose access to tools that genuinely help you do your job. The sweet spot—responsible regulation—is exactly what Alex Bores campaigned on. But whether he’ll deliver is another question.

I tried to get a comment from Bores’ office. No response yet. But I did look at his voting record. He’s been in office for less than a year, and he’s already co-sponsored a bill on AI transparency in hiring. That’s a start. But $27 million is a lot of money. It buys a lot of loyalty. And I wonder: who will he listen to when the knaves come calling?

The Local Is Global

Here’s something I’ve learned covering tech policy for fifteen years: what starts in the states doesn’t stay in the states. California’s privacy law, the CCPA, became the de facto standard for the entire country. New York’s AI regulations could do the same. So when AI super PACs drop $27 million on a local race, they’re not just buying a seat in Albany. They’re buying a template for the rest of the nation.

And that’s kind of wild when you think about it. A few hundred thousand voters in one district could determine the rules that govern the AI tools used by millions of workers across the country. That’s democracy, I guess. But it’s also a reminder that the future of work isn’t just decided in Silicon Valley or Washington. It’s decided in state capitals, in local elections, in the quiet conversations between lobbyists and legislators.

What You Can Do

I’m not going to tell you to get involved in politics. That’s your call. But I will say this: if you rely on AI tools for your job, you should care about who’s writing the rules. And the first step is just paying attention. Read the local news. Follow the state legislature. Call your representative. Ask them where they stand on AI regulation.

Because here’s the truth: the $27 million spent on this one election is a down payment. If it works, they’ll spend more. And if it doesn’t, they’ll find another way. The AI industry is playing a long game. The question is: are you?

I don’t have a tidy answer. I don’t think there is one. But I do know this: the tools you use at work every day are shaped by decisions made in rooms you’ll never see. And the only way to have a voice is to use it.

So, yeah. That’s why AI companies spent $27 million on a local election. And that’s why you should care. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a meeting to summarize. My AI assistant is waiting.

---

Originally reported by www.theverge.com. Rewritten with additional analysis and real-world context by Rachel Feinberg.