The midterms are shaping up to be a record-breaking election for Democrats, who have flipped states including South Carolina and Texas. But the election has also shattered records for private political spending. By some estimates, super PAC spending exceeded $2 billion this cycle, more than 50% above previous election cycles.
One of the dominant narratives heading into the midterms was that Big Tech—and the artificial intelligence sector in particular—would spend hundreds of millions of dollars electing AI-friendly lawmakers, much as the cryptocurrency industry had done in previous elections. Indeed, Leading the Future, the largest pro-AI super PAC network, backed by Andreessen Horowitz, Greg Brockman, and Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale, invited comparisons to the crypto super PAC network Fairshake, drawing on some of the same donors and political operatives. (Both networks operate through partisan affiliates: Leading the Future has Think Big for Democrats and American Mission for Republicans, while Fairshake’s got Protect Progress and Defend American Jobs, respectively.)
But as public sentiment toward AI soured and Democratic Party insiders warned candidates against accepting industry money, the narrative began to shift. Yet a Fast Company analysis of election data suggests the midterms were hardly the rebuke of AI money that some had anticipated. More than 86% of the candidates backed by Leading the Future have won or are currently leading their House or Senate races. That’s roughly on par with Fairshake, which supported 87 candidates this cycle, 77 of whom have won or are currently ahead.
The two industries’ political efforts also appear to be converging. Leading the Future and Fairshake backed 21 of the same candidates, including Rep. Kevin Hern, who won his Senate race in Oklahoma. Hern also received support from the Anthropic-funded Public First, which has positioned itself as a counterweight to the industry’s other political spending operations.
Big Crypto outspent the AI industry but achieved similar results
While Big Crypto outspent the largest AI industry super PACs this election cycle and backed more candidates, the groups saw broadly similar results. Fairshake, the cryptocurrency super PAC funded by Coinbase, Ripple, and Andreessen Horowitz, spent about $154 million this cycle, compared with $34.8 million by Leading the Future and $24.4 million by Public First. Yet roughly comparable shares of the candidates each group supported won their elections.
Of the 12 Senate candidates backed by Leading the Future, nine won their races, compared with five of Fairshake’s eight candidates. Both Senate candidates supported by Public First—Kevin Hern in Oklahoma and Pete Ricketts in Nebraska—also won. In the House, Leading the Future’s candidates won 31 of 38 races, compared with six of 11 for Public First and 63 of 79 for Fairshake.
Analysts had previously noted that Leading the Future appeared to be playing it safe, largely backing incumbents. But Fast Company ’s analysis found that just over half of its 40 winning candidates were incumbents. The group also spent considerably more, on average, backing non-incumbents: roughly $511,000 per candidate, compared with $288,100 for incumbents.
Several of Leading the Future’s biggest investments paid off. Among its winning candidates were Louisiana Republican Julia Letlow, whom the group backed with $1.17 million; Utah Democrat Ben McAdams, who received $1.12 million in support; and New York Democrat Ritchie Torres, who received $1.16 million.
But heavy spending was no guarantee of success. Two of the 10 candidates on whom Leading the Future spent the most lost their races.
Arguably the AI industry’s biggest setback came in South Carolina, where Democrat Annie Andrews defeated Republican Darline Graham, sister of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham. Leading the Future spent about $2.3 million supporting Graham—more than it spent on any other candidate. Another pro-AI super PAC, Building the Future, poured an additional $2.5 million into the race, the only contest it has reported spending on. Yet Andrews, a former pediatrician, pulled off a historic victory in the Republican stronghold without financial backing from either AI or crypto super PACs.
Leading the Future also spent nearly $1.4 million on Jesse Jackson Jr., the disgraced former Illinois congressman who resigned amid a federal corruption investigation. He didn’t make it past his primary.
Public First suffered several high-profile defeats of its own. The group spent roughly $13 million backing New York Democrat Alex Bores, who lost his primary. Other losing candidates who received substantial support included Texas Republican Carlos De La Cruz Jr. ($1.5 million), Alabama Republican Rhett Marques ($960,000), and Texas Republican Alexandra Mealer ($905,000).
Fairshake likewise saw some of its biggest bets fail. The group spent $36.8 million supporting Ohio Sen. Jon Husted and another $19.7 million opposing his Democratic challenger, Sherrod Brown. Brown won. Fairshake’s second-largest investment, however, paid off: Alabama Republican Barry Moore won his Senate race after receiving $12.2 million in support.
The group also spent millions trying unsuccessfully to defeat several Democrats, including Illinois Senate candidate Juliana Stratton, whom it spent nearly $10 million opposing. Three House Democrats also prevailed despite Fairshake’s opposition: La Shawn Ford in Illinois ($2.5 million), Oliver Gilbert in Florida ($2.1 million), and Donavan McKinney in Michigan ($269,000).
AI Super PAC spending peaked during the primaries, then cooled heading into the general election
Weekly spending by the largest AI super PACs surged in June, coinciding with the closely watched Democratic primary of Alex Bores in New York. Bores, a New York Assembly member and former Palantir data scientist turned AI safety advocate, lost after Leading the Future poured $8 million into opposing his candidacy. The Anthropic-backed Public First, meanwhile, spent roughly $10 million of its $13 million investment in Bores that same month.
Bores lost to fellow Assembly member Micah Lasher, who went on to appear on the general-election ballot in New York’s 12th Congressional District. Neither super PAC spent money supporting or opposing Lasher.
But AI money, especially toward the end of the election cycle, was dwarfed by Big Crypto.
In October, Fairshake spent $57.6 million, largely on advertising and media buys, compared with $4.1 million by Leading the Future and just over $1 million by Public First.
Industry observers have attributed that disparity, at least in part, to AI’s growing unpopularity across the political spectrum. A September Pew Research Center poll found that 56% of Democrats were concerned about the impact of AI, compared with 46% of Republicans—a relatively narrow partisan divide in an otherwise polarized political climate.
Even so, both Leading the Future and Public First backed more Republicans than Democrats. Leading the Future supported 34 Republicans and 16 Democrats, spending money to oppose just one candidate: Bores. Of the Republicans it backed, 28 won or are currently leading their races, compared with 15 of the 16 Democrats. Public First supported eight Republicans and five Democrats, while spending $1.4 million opposing three Republicans. Four of its five Democratic candidates won, compared with four of its eight Republicans.
Despite the prevailing view that Democrats see AI money as toxic, Big AI has still spent an outsized amount supporting Democratic candidates. On average, Leading the Future spent nearly twice as much per Democratic candidate than Republican.
Public First’s spending followed a somewhat different pattern. Although it spent more overall supporting Democrats, largely because of its $13 million investment in Bores, its median spending per Republican candidate was higher.
That spending came despite a public backlash from within the Democratic Party. More than 100 Democratic operatives signed an open letter urging candidates to reject money from AI companies. Yet the industry’s political spending continued, often with little mention of AI itself. As NBC News reported , ads funded by AI groups rarely highlighted candidates’ positions on the technology.
There is also a convergence between the candidates Big Crypto and Big AI support. Leading the Future and Fairshake backed 20 of the same candidates this cycle, including New York Democratic Rep. Ritchie Torres, who received $1.4 million in support from Fairshake and $1.1 million from Leading the Future. Alabama Republican Barry Moore also benefited from both groups, receiving $12.2 million in support from Fairshake and roughly $330,000 from Leading the Future.
As public sentiment sours, the industry faces a wave of potential legislative and regulatory challenges. Democratic gains in Congress could mean greater scrutiny of AI companies, which have until now enjoyed powerful allies in the House, Senate, and White House. Proposals ranging from state and federal data center moratoriums to restrictions on the development of artificial superintelligence could help shape the industry’s future.
When the new Congress convenes, roughly one in 13 House members and a quarter of newly elected senators will have benefited from Leading the Future’s support. For a super PAC that didn’t exist two years ago, that’s a remarkable foothold. Whether it translates into political power is another question.
