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

AI-focused political action committees poured at least $8 million into Tuesday's midterm elections — roughly $4.8 million of it on a single losing Senate candidate — and walked away with a mixed scorecard in which several of the most heavily backed contenders lost their races. The results mark the first full electoral stress test of organized AI-industry political money, and the industry's skeptics are already claiming vindication.

The biggest single bet came from American Mission and Building the Future, two industry-aligned PACs that collectively spent $4.8 million backing South Carolina Senate candidate Darline Graham. Graham lost. 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 capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.

American Mission also spent more than $500,000 apiece supporting two 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.

Takeaway: The industry's Republican-facing arm spent the most money and lost nearly every race it touched.

Did the pro-safeguards side do any better?

Groups pushing for stronger AI safeguards also posted mixed results, though their failures drew less attention. Public First, which is backed by Anthropic, supported several Republicans through its affiliated PAC — all of whom lost. The group had more success backing 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 that has worked to make accepting money from AI companies a political liability, spent more than $1 million apiece opposing two candidates who lost: California Rep. Jimmy Gomez and Montana's Flint. It also spent $300,000 supporting Angela Gonzales-Torres, who defeated Gomez in that race.

Takeaway: Neither camp can claim the midterms as a mandate; both sides backed losers and winners in roughly equal measure.

Can anyone actually measure the impact of this spending?

Not cleanly. The source is explicit that it is difficult to separate the effect of AI-related spending from the broader Democratic wave that swept Tuesday's elections. Elon Musk, who reportedly poured half a billion dollars into supporting Republicans in the midterms, also watched many of his candidates lose. LTF itself backed some candidates it judged likely to win, only to see them fall to the Democrats.

That context matters for anyone reading the $4.8 million Graham figure as a verdict on AI money specifically. When a national wave runs against one party, outside spending of any origin tends to get swamped. The losses are real; the causal lesson is murky.

Takeaway: The results say more about the national mood than about the power of AI PACs.

Why did LTF spend comparatively little in the general election?

For LTF, the general election was never the main event. The group told TechCrunch ahead of Election Day that it considers primaries — the contests that choose each party's nominee — a more effective use of its money, because spending there can build name recognition and help candidates set up AI policy agendas before they face the broader electorate.

The primary numbers dwarf the general-election figures. 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. When deciding whether to enter a general election race, LTF says it weighs three factors: how competitive the race is, whether spending could plausibly make a difference, and whether it should hold funds for future elections.

Charlie Blaettler, political director of Guardrails Alliance, offered a sharper explanation for the industry's restraint. "They don't want their money to become an issue in these elections," Blaettler said.

He pointed to the Michigan Senate primary as a cautionary tale. There, 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. Outside money, in that race, became the story rather than the lever.

"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."

Blaettler's claims about public attitudes are assertions from an interested party, not polling results — the source offers no survey data to support them. But the Michigan example is concrete, and the underlying logic explains why a well-funded industry group might choose primaries, where fewer voters are watching, over high-visibility general elections.

Takeaway: LTF says primaries are more efficient; its opponents say the industry is hiding money that voters would punish.

What is the actual policy fight about?

The spending is not primarily about individual candidates. The central dispute among AI PACs — pro-industry and pro-regulation alike — is whether Congress should establish a national AI framework that overrides state laws, or whether states will keep their own authority to impose safeguards. California's repeated attempts at state-level AI regulation have made this a live question, and Wiener's race carried direct stakes for it.

The messaging strategies reflect that divide from opposite directions. Blaettler said LTF's ads rarely mention AI at all, focusing instead on popular issues for each candidate. Guardrails Alliance's ads do the reverse: they are specifically about who is taking money from the AI industry.

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

Neither side shows any sign of standing down. LTF, which favors a single national AI framework, told TechCrunch it plans to keep spending in the 2028 elections. Guardrails Alliance says it intends to keep opposing candidates backed by the AI industry.

Takeaway: The midterms were an opening round in a fight over who regulates AI — Washington or the states — that both camps have already scheduled through 2028.

What the money bought, and what it didn't

The ledger, as far as the source documents it:

• $27.38 million — LTF's total primary spending, including $8 million against Alex Bores, who lost in June.
• $4.8 million — American Mission and Building the Future's combined spending for Darline Graham in South Carolina, who lost.
• $500,000+ each — American Mission's backing of Aaron Flint (Montana) and Laurie Buckhout (North Carolina), both of whom lost.
• $3 million — Public First's contribution to a PAC supporting California state Sen. Scott Wiener, who was leading at publication time.
• $1 million+ each — Guardrails Alliance's spending against Jimmy Gomez and Flint, both of whom lost; plus $300,000 for Angela Gonzales-Torres, who won.

What the numbers do not show is any race where AI money plausibly flipped the outcome. Every heavily backed loser lost; the winners — Moskowitz, Gonzales-Torres, and likely Wiener — were incumbents or favorites in races a wave was already carrying. Guardrails Alliance can point to two defeats of candidates it opposed; it cannot demonstrate its spending caused them.

The unanswered question is whether AI industry money will follow the AIPAC playbook LTF's critics invoke — retreating to low-turnout primaries where heavy spending moves votes with less scrutiny — or risk the general-election exposure that made Michigan's $30 million intervention a liability. With LTF committed through 2028 and Guardrails Alliance promising to keep making AI money a campaign issue, the next test arrives in the next primary cycle, long before voters see another presidential ballot.