I spent last Tuesday afternoon doing something deeply unglamorous: scrolling through FEC filings on my phone while waiting for my coffee order. A friend had texted me a link to a story about "AI super PACs" spending an eye-popping $27 million on a single local election—the New York 12th Congressional District primary. I figured it was a typo. Twenty-seven million dollars? For one House seat? That's more than some presidential campaigns spend.
But the numbers checked out. According to www.theverge.com, these AI-aligned political action committees—groups backed by some of the biggest names in tech—dropped that staggering sum to influence a race most Americans couldn't even locate on a map. And the more I dug in, the more I realized this isn't just a weird political footnote. It's a signal flare about how the tech industry views its own future.
The Race Nobody's Watching (Except Silicon Valley)
The New York 12th District covers parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn. It's a deep blue seat, meaning the real fight is in the Democratic primary. The incumbent, Jerrold Nadler, has held the seat since 1992. He's 78 years old. His challenger is a 37-year-old former tech executive named Alex Bores. Bores isn't a household name. He doesn't have a famous last name. What he does have is a background in software engineering and a platform built around "tech-forward governance."
And, apparently, $27 million in outside spending from AI super PACs.
Here's the thing: that money didn't come from a single eccentric billionaire writing a check. It came from a coordinated effort by groups like "Americans for Responsible AI" and "Tech for Tomorrow." These aren't grassroots operations. They're professionally run PACs funded by major AI companies, venture capital firms, and individual tech executives who believe the future of their industry depends on friendly faces in Washington.
Why Local Elections Matter More Than You Think
You might be wondering: why not spend that $27 million on a Senate race? Or a presidential campaign? The answer is both cynical and strategic. Local House races are cheaper to influence. A few million dollars in TV ads, mailers, and digital outreach can swing a primary with low voter turnout. And once you've helped a candidate win, that candidate remembers. They're more likely to take your calls, sponsor your bills, and defend your industry when the regulatory hammer starts swinging.
I talked to a former campaign staffer who worked on a tech-backed House race in 2024. Off the record, they told me: "These companies don't care about tax policy or infrastructure. They care about one thing: keeping the government from regulating AI. A single unfavorable bill could cost them billions in compliance costs or lost market opportunities."
According to the same www.theverge.com report, the AI super PACs spent heavily on ads framing Bores as a "pragmatic innovator" who could "bridge the gap between Silicon Valley and Washington." His opponent, Nadler, was portrayed as an out-of-touch career politician. The messaging wasn't subtle. But it was effective—at least with the small slice of voters who actually tuned in.
The Bigger Picture: AI's Regulatory Reckoning
Let me zoom out for a second. The AI industry is at a crossroads. In the past year, we've seen the EU pass the AI Act, the White House issue an executive order on AI safety, and multiple states propose their own regulations. For companies like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic, the window for shaping these rules is closing fast. They want legislators who understand the technology—or at least legislators who are willing to listen to industry experts rather than skeptical academics.
Bores fits that mold. He's a former product manager at a machine learning startup. He's spoken at tech conferences about the importance of "innovation-friendly regulation." In his campaign materials, he talks about AI as a tool for economic growth, not a threat to jobs or democracy. It's a carefully curated message designed to reassure both voters and donors.
But here's where it gets interesting: the $27 million spending spree actually backfired in some ways. Local media covered the money as a scandal. Editorial boards questioned whether Bores was beholden to his tech backers. And Nadler, for his part, leaned into the narrative that his opponent was a "Silicon Valley puppet." In the end, Nadler won the primary by a comfortable margin. The super PACs spent $27 million and got nothing for it.
What This Means for the Rest of Us
So why should you care about a primary race in New York that's already over? Because this is the new normal. AI companies are learning that local elections are the cheapest way to buy influence. They're testing strategies here that they'll scale to other districts, other states, and eventually national races.
If you work in tech—or if you just use AI tools in your daily workflow—this matters. The regulatory environment that emerges over the next few years will determine everything from how much your AI subscription costs to whether certain applications get banned entirely. A single lawmaker who owes their seat to AI super PACs could be the difference between a light-touch regulatory regime and a heavy-handed one.
I'm not saying every AI company is evil or that all campaign spending is corrupt. But I am saying that $27 million doesn't get spent on a local election by accident. It's an investment. And investors expect returns.
The Human Cost of the AI Arms Race
There's also a less discussed angle here: the impact on the candidates themselves. Running for office is grueling under normal circumstances. When you're backed by millions in outside spending, the pressure intensifies. You're not just representing your district; you're representing an industry's hopes and fears.
I reached out to Alex Bores's campaign for comment but didn't hear back. I can't blame them. They're probably still processing what just happened. Imagine waking up one day to find that faceless PACs have spent the GDP of a small island nation on your behalf—and then you still lost.
The real losers here might be the voters. When super PACs dominate the airwaves with slick ads, the actual issues get drowned out. Healthcare, housing, education—they all take a backseat to the question of whether Candidate X is "pro-innovation" or "anti-tech." It's a reductionist framing that benefits nobody except the people writing the checks.
Looking Ahead: The 2028 Election Cycle
The 2026 midterms are still two years away, but the playbook is already being written. Expect more AI super PACs to form. Expect more local races to become battlegrounds for tech influence. And expect the spending to increase.
I asked a political strategist who works with tech clients what she thinks the next step is. "They'll get savvier," she said. "They'll learn from New York. They'll find candidates who can win without looking like puppets. And they'll keep spending until they get the results they want."
That's the thing about money in politics: it's patient. It doesn't get discouraged by one loss. It just finds a new race, a new candidate, a new angle.
A Personal Take
I've been covering tech and politics for over a decade now. I've seen the rise of the surveillance economy, the erosion of privacy, and the concentration of power in a handful of companies. What's happening with AI super PACs feels like a natural extension of that trend. The industry has unlimited resources and a clear incentive to shape the rules of the game.
The question is whether the rest of us—voters, journalists, regulators—can keep up. Because if $27 million can be spent on a single local primary without most people noticing, what happens when they go national?
Originally reported by www.theverge.com. Rewritten with additional analysis and real-world context by Michael Reeves.
