AI PACs Burned Millions in Midterms and Lost More Than They Won

Two pro-industry AI political action committees spent $4.8 million backing a single South Carolina Senate candidate, Darline Graham — and she lost. That figure, covering American Mission and Building the Future, sets the tone for what was a bruising, expensive and uneven election night for the AI sector's political arms.

American Mission is the Republican spending arm of Leading the Future (LTF), a broader political group backed by OpenAI President Greg Brockman and the venture firm Andreessen Horowitz. Beyond South Carolina, it dropped more than $500,000 apiece on Republican House candidates Aaron Flint in Montana and Laurie Buckhout in North Carolina. Both lost.

LTF's Democratic spending arm, Think Big, fared better. It backed Florida Rep. Jared Moskowitz, who won reelection.

How did the pro-safeguards side perform?

Groups pushing for stronger AI safeguards also split their results. Public First, backed by Anthropic, supported several Republicans through its affiliated PAC who went on to lose, but had more success with Democratic candidates. It also contributed $3 million to a PAC supporting California state Sen. Scott Wiener, who was leading his race at the time of publication.

Guardrails Alliance, a group working to make AI-industry money a political liability, spent more than $1 million apiece opposing two candidates who lost: California Rep. Jimmy Gomez and Montana's Flint. It spent another $300,000 supporting Angela Gonzales-Torres, who defeated Gomez.

Did the money actually matter?

It's hard to isolate the effect of AI-related spending from the broader Democratic wave that swept Tuesday's midterms. Elon Musk, who reportedly poured half a billion dollars into supporting Republicans, watched many of his candidates lose too. LTF also backed candidates it believed were likely winners, only to see them fall to the Democrats.

For LTF, the general election was never the main event. The group told TechCrunch ahead of Election Day that it sees primaries — the contests that choose each party's nominee — as a more effective use of its money, because spending there builds name recognition and helps candidates set up AI policy agendas.

The numbers back that up. LTF spent $27.38 million in the primaries, including $8 million alone on opposing New York Assembly member Alex Bores, who lost his bid for Congress back in June. Before entering a general election race, LTF weighs how competitive the race is, whether its spending could make a difference, and whether it should keep its powder dry for future contests.

Why did the industry stay quiet in November?

Charlie Blaettler, political director of Guardrails Alliance, offered a sharper theory for LTF's light general-election footprint.

"They don't want their money to become an issue in these elections," Blaettler said.

He pointed to Michigan's Senate primary, where the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC spent close to $30 million backing Democratic candidate Haley Stevens against Abdul El-Sayed. Stevens conceded the primary to El-Sayed, who went on to win the Senate seat.

"AIPAC became the story in that race," Blaettler said. "We know people hate AI billionaires. They hate the people running these companies. They're very distrustful and disgusted by the political spending and lobbying that the tech industry does. If they spend in a competitive race, they would just become an enormous liability for their candidates."

What's the actual fight about?

The core dispute between the AI PACs — pro-industry and pro-regulation alike — is whether Congress should establish a national AI framework that overrides state laws, or whether states keep the power to impose their own safeguards.

Neither side is backing down. LTF, which favors a single national AI framework, told TechCrunch it plans to keep spending in the 2028 elections. Guardrails Alliance says it will keep opposing candidates backed by the AI industry.

Their ad strategies differ sharply. Blaettler said LTF's ads rarely mention AI, focusing instead on popular issues for each candidate, while Guardrails Alliance's ads zero in on who is taking AI-industry money.

"Our goal is to make AI money politically toxic," Blaettler said.

With $27 million already deployed in primaries and both camps committed through 2028, the midterms were less a verdict than an opening round in a longer fight over who writes America's AI rules.