AI regulation

AI's $27 Million Proxy War: OpenAI vs Anthropic

Two AI labs poured tens of millions into a single Manhattan congressional race — and the winner told them both to get lost.

~$43.6M in tracked spending across 3 disclosed flows.

The money, at a glance

supports opposes backs / fundsthicker line = more money

In the 2026 midterms, super PACs tied to OpenAI and Anthropic turned a New York congressional primary into a referendum on AI regulation. A pro-deregulation PAC funded by Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI president Greg Brockman spent ~$8M trying to sink Alex Bores, a regulation-minded candidate; an Anthropic-backed PAC spent ~$19M trying to save him — roughly $27M combined in one race. Bores lost anyway. The winner, Micah Lasher, took 39% of the vote, publicly rebuked both companies, and then went on to pursue the same AI-regulation agenda his defeated opponent had run on. Anthropic-affiliated PACs spent another ~$16.6M across races in North Carolina, Texas, and Utah. Zooming out: AI-focused super PACs have spent $43.3M on congressional races this cycle (OpenSecrets), and FEC filings show Leading the Future alone raised $75.5M and disbursed $24.4M in the 2026 cycle.

The funders

Leading the Future

Pro-deregulation

OpenAI-aligned · FEC C00916114

• Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) — OpenAI investor
• Greg Brockman — OpenAI president & co-founder

Stated mission: oppose policies that "stifle innovation, enable China to gain global AI superiority, or make it harder to bring AI's benefits into the world."

Public First Action

Pro-regulation

Anthropic-aligned · FEC C30003586

• Anthropic

Backs candidates aligned with stronger AI oversight. Anthropic, founded by former OpenAI staff, has publicly called for more regulation of frontier AI.

Jobs and Democracy / Defending Our Values

Pro-regulation

Anthropic-aligned · FEC C00930503

• Public First-affiliated
• Anthropic-aligned

Public First-affiliated PACs spending in congressional races beyond New York, aligned with the pro-regulation camp.

Where the money went

Leading the FutureopposedAlex Bores

~$8M

New York (NY-12)

Spent roughly $8M on ads opposing Bores, a regulation-minded candidate, in the NY-12 Democratic primary. [source]

Public First ActionsupportedAlex Bores

~$19M

New York (NY-12)

Spent roughly $19M supporting Bores in the same race — more than double what the opposing PAC spent. Bores still lost. [source]

Jobs and Democracy / Defending Our ValuessupportedCongressional races

~ (aggregate, per OpenSecrets) $16.6M

North Carolina, Texas, Utah

Public First-affiliated PACs (Jobs and Democracy, Defending Our Values) spent ~$16.6M across congressional races in North Carolina, Texas, and Utah, per OpenSecrets. [source]

What the money is saying

Attack ads & stated mission· Leading the Future

Frames AI regulation as a threat to innovation, American jobs, and U.S. competitiveness against China. The deregulation case is the throughline: rules slow progress and hand the lead to Beijing. [source]

Support ads & stated mission· Public First Action

Frames the fight as protecting kids, jobs, and the environment from unregulated AI — backing candidates who favor guardrails and oversight of frontier models. [source]

On the ground

The fight is not only PAC ad money. In Utah, residents demonstrated at the state Capitol in Salt Lake City on May 23, 2026 against a new data-center build — one sign read "not here, not anywhere — end AI." Local opposition to AI infrastructure (data centers, water and power use) runs alongside the super-PAC spending in the same states. [source]

Outcome

Winner Micah Lasher (39%) told both companies: "I won't be taking my cues from either of you when it comes to protecting our kids, our jobs, our environment." He then pursued the same AI-regulation agenda as the candidate the Anthropic-backed PAC had spent $19M to elect — suggesting the $27M bought neither side its preferred messenger. [source]

Read the framing carefully

The popular shorthand — "Anthropic funds anti-AI, OpenAI funds pro-AI" — is misleading. Both are AI companies; neither is against AI. The real split is over regulation: the OpenAI-aligned camp spends to oppose rules it says would stifle innovation and cede ground to China, while the Anthropic-aligned camp spends to support stronger guardrails. The framing matters, because "pro-AI vs anti-AI" hides what the money is actually buying: a particular regulatory outcome.