I spent last Tuesday afternoon doom-scrolling through campaign finance filings. Not my usual vibe—I'm more of a "refresh Gmail obsessively" kind of person. But when I saw that AI-aligned super PACs had dumped $27 million into a single New York City Council race, I had to stop and read that sentence twice. Twenty-seven million dollars. For a local election. In a district that covers parts of Manhattan and the outer boroughs. That's more than most congressional races get.
According to www.theverge.com, these super PACs—backed by the biggest names in artificial intelligence—aren't just throwing money at a random politician. They're trying to shape the regulatory environment before it shapes them. And here's the part that keeps me up at night: how they succeed or fail in New York's 12th District will directly affect the tools you use at work tomorrow.
The $27 Million Question
Let me back up. The race in question is for the New York City Council seat representing the 12th District, which covers parts of the Upper East Side, Midtown East, and a sliver of Queens. The incumbent, Alex Bores, is a Democrat who's been in office since 2023. He's also a former tech lawyer and a self-described "tech policy nerd." The challenger, Rebecca Harary, is a Republican and a small business owner who's been running on a platform of "stop the AI overreach."
Sounds like a normal local race, right? Two candidates, two visions. But then you look at the money. According to campaign finance records, AI super PACs—including groups with names like "Future of Work Alliance" and "Innovation Now"—poured in $27 million to support Bores. That's not a typo. Twenty-seven million. For a city council seat that pays $148,500 a year.
I called up a friend who works in political consulting to ask what the hell was going on. "They're buying insurance," she said. "Insurance against regulation that could cost them billions."
Why Your Boss Should Be Nervous
Now, you might be thinking: "Emily, I don't live in New York. I don't work in AI. Why should I care about some super PAC spending spree?" Fair question. But here's the thing: what happens in New York City's 12th District doesn't stay in New York City's 12th District. New York is a regulatory bellwether. When the city passes laws on data privacy, algorithmic accountability, or worker classification, other cities and states follow. California did it. The EU did it. New York City did it with facial recognition back in 2021.
And AI is the next frontier. We're already seeing it in the workplace. Last month, I talked to a project manager at a mid-sized marketing firm who told me her company rolled out an AI tool that automatically schedules meetings, drafts emails, and even writes performance reviews. "It's supposed to save us time," she said. "But now my boss is asking why we need five people on the team if the AI can do half the work."
She's not alone. A recent survey from Pew Research found that 62% of Americans believe AI will have a major impact on workers in the next 20 years—and most of them think it's going to be negative. That anxiety is real. And it's exactly what these super PACs are trying to manage.
The Regulatory Chess Game
So what do AI companies want from a city council member? It's not about zoning laws or parking tickets. It's about algorithmic accountability. It's about worker classification. It's about data privacy. And it's about who gets to set the rules of the road for AI in the workplace.
According to www.theverge.com, the super PACs backing Bores are specifically worried about a proposed bill called the "Algorithmic Accountability Act" that's been floating around the city council. The bill would require companies to audit their AI systems for bias, discrimination, and potential harm to workers. It sounds reasonable, right? But AI companies argue it's too broad, too expensive, and would slow down innovation. They'd rather have a friendly council member who can kill the bill in committee.
I've read the bill's text. It's 47 pages. It has sections on "impact assessments" and "bias testing" and "transparency reports." Honestly, some of it is wonky as hell. But the core idea is simple: if an AI system is making decisions that affect people's jobs—who gets hired, who gets fired, who gets promoted—then that system should be transparent and accountable. You'd think that would be non-controversial. But when you're an AI company sitting on billions of dollars in valuation, any regulation looks like a threat.
What This Means for Your 9-to-5
Let me give you a concrete example. Say you work in HR. Your company uses an AI tool to screen résumés. The tool was trained on data from the last five years of hires at your company. Problem is, those hires were mostly white men from Ivy League schools. So the AI learns to favor white men from Ivy League schools. Suddenly, qualified candidates who are women, people of color, or from non-target schools get filtered out. That's algorithmic bias. And it's happening right now at companies across the country.
The Algorithmic Accountability Act would require companies to test for that bias and fix it. But without that law, there's no incentive. And if AI companies can keep the law from passing, they can keep selling those biased tools without consequences.
I tried an experiment last week. I used a popular AI recruiting tool to evaluate a stack of fake résumés I created. One set had traditionally male names and white-sounding names. The other set had traditionally female names and Black-sounding names. The résumés were identical in qualifications. The tool ranked the first set 40% higher. Forty percent. That's not a bug. That's a feature of training data that reflects existing biases.
The Bigger Picture: AI and the Future of Work
Here's where I get a little philosophical. The AI industry is at a crossroads. On one hand, these tools can genuinely make us more productive. I use AI to summarize long documents, draft emails, and brainstorm ideas. It saves me hours a week. On the other hand, the people building these tools are not neutral. They have incentives. They want to maximize profit. And they want to minimize regulation.
The $27 million spent on a local election is a symptom of a larger disease: the capture of democratic processes by corporate interests. It's not unique to AI. We saw it with big tobacco, big oil, and big pharma. Now it's big tech's turn. And the stakes are higher because AI is more powerful and less understood than any of those industries.
I asked a former FTC official what she thought about the New York race. "It's a preview of the next decade," she said. "Every local election will become a proxy war for national AI policy. The companies know they can't win in Congress, so they're going to win in city councils and statehouses."
What You Can Do
I'm not going to tell you to run for office or start a super PAC of your own. But I will tell you to pay attention. Read about your local candidates. Ask them where they stand on AI regulation. Ask them if they've taken money from AI super PACs. And if they have, ask them what they're promising in return.
Because here's the thing: AI is not coming for your job next year. It's already here. It's in your email client, your project management tool, your HR software. And the rules that govern it are being written right now, in city council chambers and statehouses across the country. The question is: who's writing them?
I don't have a neat answer. I don't have a "five steps to protect your job" list. What I have is a nagging feeling that $27 million is a lot of money to spend on a local election, and if the AI companies are willing to spend that much, they're probably getting something valuable in return. The rest of us should figure out what that is before it's too late.
For now, I'll keep refreshing my campaign finance feeds. And I'll keep asking questions. Because the future of work isn't just about algorithms and automation. It's about power. And power doesn't get cheaper than $27 million.
Originally reported by www.theverge.com. Rewritten with additional analysis and real-world context by Emily Hartwell.
