Silicon Valley's AI Political Machine Spent $78.5 Million Fighting Itself

AI political groups have spent roughly $78.5 million on federal races this cycle — and about 74% of it went to primaries, much of it to fighting each other. With one week until the midterm election, a CNBC analysis of Federal Election Commission filings through Oct. 20 shows the two rival Silicon Valley camps locked in a costly tug-of-war that has undercut their original plan to copy the crypto industry's playbook.

The numbers define the split. Groups favoring faster AI development and lighter, uniform federal rules have spent roughly $8 million in general-election congressional races. Groups pushing stronger safeguards and state-level regulatory authority have spent about $6.9 million. The accelerating camp includes Leading the Future, the super PAC network launched in August 2025 with more than $100 million in commitments from Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI President Greg Brockman and his wife, Anna, and Perplexity and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale.

What does the Florida face-off reveal?

Florida's 25th Congressional District has become the clearest microcosm of the feud. During the primary, Think Big — an affiliate of Leading the Future — spent $310,000 supporting Democrat Jared Moskowitz, whose district changed after Florida redrew its congressional map ahead of the 2026 election.

On the other side, Defending Our Values, a super PAC favoring stricter safety guardrails and state-level authority, spent almost $857,000 boosting Republican Scott Singer. It spent an additional $740,000 to keep one of Singer's primary opponents from winning. Moskowitz and Singer now face each other in the general election.

Both camps support AI innovation and agree on the need for some guardrails. They disagree on deployment speed, regulatory reach, and the balance of power between federal and state governments. Electing more allies could give either side an edge in shaping AI policy in the next Congress. The feud itself risks weakening Silicon Valley's collective clout.

"Everyone supports some form of regulation. It's just a debate about how much," said Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the nonpartisan Center for Political Accountability and a former chief investigator for the Senate banking committee. "Money is flowing in all directions to be in the driver's seat of what happens."

CNBC identified federal committees aligned with each camp and totaled their FEC-reported independent expenditures supporting or opposing congressional candidates. The analysis excludes state races and nonprofit advocacy spending.

Why did the strategy fracture?

The original model was cryptocurrency. Fairshake and its affiliated pro-crypto super PACs, backed by Coinbase, Ripple and Andreessen Horowitz, spent more than $130 million during the 2024 election cycle, according to FEC filings. Candidates it supported won 53 of 58 races — a 91% success rate, according to crypto publication CoinDesk.

AI investors took note. Leading the Future launched in August 2025, co-led by Josh Vlasto, who worked for Fairshake last cycle. The network deployed a Democratic PAC, Think Big, and a Republican PAC, American Mission, to support candidates aligned with faster AI development and opposition to a patchwork of state regulations. The message to lawmakers was explicit: back AI's agenda or risk millions being spent against you.

"The AI industry announced last year that they were going to rerun the crypto industry playbook by coming in swinging with oodles of money in order to bully lawmakers into submission," said Sacha Haworth, founder and executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, a nonprofit watchdog advocating stronger regulation of Big Tech and AI.

The tactic worked at first. In the cycle's first major primaries in March, three candidates heavily backed by American Mission — Jessica Steinmann in Texas, Chris Gober in Texas and Laurie Buckhout in North Carolina — won their Republican contests after the group spent more than $500,000 supporting each, according to FEC filings.

How did Anthropic change the equation?

A rival infrastructure was already forming. Anthropic committed $20 million to Public First Action in February and another $20 million in July, giving the safeguards camp a major financial backer. Anthropic says its money is restricted to policy and public education and cannot fund candidate elections. Separately funded super PACs tied to Public First Action have nonetheless spent millions advancing similar priorities.

The clash erupted in New York's 12th District Democratic primary. Think Big spent $8.3 million, according to FEC filings, trying to defeat state Assemblymember Alex Bores, who authored major state AI safety legislation. The Anthropic-backed Jobs and Democracy PAC countered with about $15 million to support him, while allied safety groups spent millions more. The two PACs' combined $23.3 million represented about 40% of both camps' primary spending nationwide, according to CNBC's analysis.

Bores lost to Micah Lasher, 39% to 35%. Think Big claimed a tactical victory, but at a strategic cost.

"They helped light a flame under the backlash that's now fueling so much of the midterm elections," Haworth said. "The race showed that spending against safety-first candidates could now trigger a counterattack from within the industry itself."

Where is the money going now?

General-election spending has continued, but at a sharply reduced pace. Safeguards-focused groups have spent $825,000 this fall opposing two Republicans who benefited from Leading the Future-aligned primary spending, according to CNBC's analysis — more than one-sixth of the camp's general-election opposition spending concentrated in two races.

Guardrails Alliance reported spending $412,500 apiece, per FEC filings, against Republican House candidates Jay Feely in Arizona and Aaron Flint in Montana. It also reported about $412,000 against Democratic Rep. Jimmy Gomez in California, whom Leading the Future endorsed but did not report spending to support.

"The big AI groups still believe that their money can help influence elections even if it's just a couple in November," Haworth said.

The overall totals show the slowdown. Leading the Future's network reported roughly $26 million in primary independent expenditures against about $8 million in general-election races. Safeguards-focused groups reported about $32.1 million in primaries and $6.9 million in general elections. Another roughly $5.5 million went to runoff and special-election spending.

Why are donors pulling back?

Part of the decline reflects a smaller universe of competitive November races. But the slowdown has coincided with AI becoming a more difficult political sell. A new CNBC All-America Economic Survey found 52% of registered voters said companies should pause development of advanced AI until Congress passes regulations, compared with 32% who favored moving ahead. Sixty-three percent said they would oppose an AI data center within 10 miles of their home.

"When evaluating risk versus reward right now, the backlash is just too big," Freed said. "AI executives and groups spent heavily in the primaries, so they likely achieved what they set out to do in most races. At this point, there's no real downside to scaling back."

Some major donors have gone further than scaling back. The Brockmans gave $25 million to Leading the Future. But amid objections from OpenAI employees to the group's tactics, OpenAI's chief strategy officer acknowledged internally that the company was taking "reputational hits," according to Semafor. The Brockmans later abandoned plans for another $25 million contribution, according to The New York Times.

Meta has retreated as well. Political groups it funded returned $25 million this summer — $22 million from the AI-promoting American Technology Excellence Project and $3 million from its California operation — according to IRS and state filings. The refunds cut Meta's planned $65 million state-level political push by nearly 40%, to about $40 million. The Times first reported the refunds.

"Something's clearly not working," OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told Politico earlier this month. "I don't think spending money on politics is what's going to make people feel better about it."

The stakes extend beyond November. Whichever camp emerges with more allies in the next Congress gains leverage over the pace and structure of AI regulation — but with public opinion tilting toward a development pause and donors cutting checks, both sides enter the election spending less, and fighting more, than the playbook ever anticipated.