Source time Edition date
IndustryWired AI
The Biggest Pro-AI Super PAC Network Didn’t Really Impact the Midterms
最大的亲AI超级政治行动委员会网络并未真正影响中期选举
Worth reading to weigh whether Leading the Future's $100 million war chest and anti-regulation stance actually bought midterm influence, a question for donors deciding future spending.
Judgment
Donors deciding whether to refill Leading the Future should condition new money on swing-race spending, because its roughly $100 million war chest left just over $20 million and its riskier bets, including Darline Graham, failed.
Basis
Sacha Haworth of the Tech Oversight Project said Leading the Future "came out guns a-blazing" to "bully lawmakers into acquiescence" and intimidate them on AI safety; Brad Carson of Public First Action called the results "a crushing blow" to the industry's anti-regulatory efforts. The mechanism WIRED reports is that the network's money went overwhelmingly to safe candidates: it spent about $26 million on primaries and only about $10 million in the general, reported zero donations in Q2 and Q3, and still had just over $20 million left. Its riskier bets did not pay off—American Mission gave more than $2 million to Darline Graham, who lost with 46.5 percent, and Alex Bores came second after Leading the Future attacked him, while Public First spent $15 million boosting Bores.
- War chest$100 million
- Cash leftjust over $20 million
- Primary spending$26 million
- General spending$10 million
Unclear The source does not say whether the zero donations in the second and third quarters were donor fatigue, a deliberate pause, or refunds.
Next Check Leading the Future's next FEC filing for Q4 donations and independent expenditures in toss-up races.