Pro-AI PAC Leading the Future ended the midterms with $20M+ in its bank, from ~$100M, after focusing on safe bipartisan candidates; its riskier bets fell flat

Your tech policy advocacy budget may need to increase, as lobbying efforts by AI companies faced significant pushback from voters and pro-AI safety groups.

The pro-AI super PAC network Leading the Future concluded the midterm elections with over $20 million remaining from an initial $100 million war chest. The PAC focused its spending primarily on candidates in safe electoral districts and supported bipartisan contenders. However, its more ambitious efforts in competitive races saw limited success. The PAC, which launched in August 2025 with significant backing from tech billionaires, aimed to influence legislation and oppose policies deemed stifling to AI innovation. Its network includes 501(c)(4) organizations and super PACs supporting both Republicans and Democrats. A notable expenditure involved opposing a pro-AI safety candidate in a primary, which backfired by elevating the candidate's platform. In riskier races, such as supporting a candidate for a Senate seat in South Carolina, the PAC's favored contenders lost. The overall strategy appeared to shift towards safer bets as polling indicated public distrust of Big Tech and concerns about regulatory capture.

Leading the Future's strategic pivot towards backing safe, bipartisan candidates in the general election signals a defensive posture. This shift, driven by internal polling and public sentiment against Big Tech, suggests a move from aggressive influence to a more cautious "ingratiation" strategy. By focusing on established candidates in non-competitive districts, the PAC aims to build goodwill and ensure a favorable environment for AI interests, rather than risking capital on challenging races. This approach contrasts with its initial aggressive stance and indicates a recognition of the public's increasing skepticism towards the tech industry's unchecked growth.

The midterm results suggest a potential turning point in the regulatory landscape for AI. The public's engagement with AI safety as a voting issue, as evidenced by polling, indicates a growing demand for oversight. The setbacks for Leading the Future, particularly in races where its influence was directly challenged by AI safety advocates, demonstrate that the industry's financial power may not be a guaranteed path to policy outcomes. This could embolden pro-safety groups and signal to lawmakers that regulating AI is becoming a politically viable and potentially popular stance.