Source Details

{
    "source_type": "extension",
    "content_hash": "f03d7fea8de5476e0f111018f50d52bd67fae9c869d130b1164984ecadf334e8",
    "submitted_via": "chrome_extension",
    "extension_version": "1.0.18",
    "original_url": "https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/interactive\/2026\/09\/29\/us\/politics\/ai-super-pac-money-midterm-elections.html?emc=edit_nn_20260930&nl=the-morning&segment_id=227287",
    "parsed_content": "A.I. Groups Are Spending Millions to Influence the Midterms See how groups aligned with Anthropic and OpenAI have funneled major money into the fight for control of Congress. By Catie Edmondson,\u00a0Matt Zdun and Daniel Wood Sept. 29, 2026 \nLeading the\nFuture\nOpenAI-aligned\nPublic First\nAnthropic-aligned\n$19.4\nmillion\n$8.2 \nmillion\n$22.5\nmillion\n$22.5\nmillion\nBoth send money to Republican\nand Democratic super PACs.\nDefending\nour Values\nJobs and\nDemocracy\nAmerican\nMission\nThink Big \nThese four PACs spent a combined\n$52.6 million on 46 primary contests.\n17 Democratic and \n2 nonpartisan contests\n$35.1 million spent\n25 Republican and \n2 nonpartisan contests\n$17.5 million spent\n Artificial intelligence companies racing to shape how the federal government might regulate their industry amid rising safety and economic concerns are spending heavily to influence which candidates make it to Congress.A New York Times analysis of federal campaign finance data shows that the political groups aligned with the two leading A.I. developers, OpenAI and Anthropic, have quietly but decisively intervened in key 2026 races, spending on campaign advertising and outreach to voters to the tune of $55.7 million.So far, the spending has been concentrated almost entirely in the primaries. The two groups have spent $52.6 million on safe seats \u2014 those that are unlikely to change party hands but that often feature intense intraparty contests. The big A.I. players have also spent more heavily for Democrats than Republicans. They have boosted candidates who align with their agendas, helped defeat those they see as hostile to it and ingratiated themselves with front-runners who are likely to be in positions of power in the next Congress to make decisions critical to their bottom lines.But with voters quickly souring on their industry \u2014 including demanding that lawmakers do more to regulate A.I. and halt or mitigate the proliferation of data centers \u2014 they have taken pains to obscure their involvement. With few exceptions, they have intervened without ever explicitly mentioning A.I. or data centers in the TV and digital ads they have purchased.SKIP ADVERTISEMENT (The Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft, claiming copyright infringement of news content related to A.I. systems. The two companies have denied those claims.)The Times reviewed 95 unique ads bought by four A.I. super PACs heavily funded by the two biggest players \u2014 the OpenAI-aligned Leading the Future and the Anthropic-aligned Public First Action \u2014 each of which funnels its money through separate Republican and Democratic groups. None of the ads mentioned data centers. Only seven mentioned A.I. or an A.I. company directly.An ad for Representative Barry Moore, Republican of Alabama, featured the phrase \u201cCHAMPION AMERICAN INNOVATION\u201d as he shook hands with firefighters in a garage \u2014 one of several A.I.-backed advertisements that used that phrase over images of workplaces that appeared to have nothing to do with artificial intelligence.Another was in support of former Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., a Democrat running for an open House seat in Illinois. It was paid for by Think Big, which is aligned with OpenAI, and praised him as committed to reducing gun violence and supporting law enforcement.And in some instances, both the Republican and Democratic groups funded by the same big A.I. player created advertisements advocating opposing sides of an issue. For example, these two spots for House candidates in Texas, one Democrat and one Republican, praise opposite positions on immigration. Both are funded by the Anthropic-aligned super PACs. \u2026 strongest voices against Trump\u2019s deportation agenda . Colin Allred Running for TX-32 \ue811 Remove illegals . Seal the border \n\u2026 Alex Mealer Running for TX-09 \ue811 \u201cIt\u2019s so cynical,\u201d said Nate Blouin, a state senator in Utah who lost a Democratic primary to an opponent who had been backed by more than $1 million in A.I.-funded ads. \u201cThey\u2019re coming into races in safe seats that they know that they\u2019re going to be decided in the primaries, and they are spending millions of dollars on things that are unrelated to the core issue that they are pushing for.\u201dIt is a strategy that has also been deployed this cycle by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, another major interest group whose brand has become a liability in recent years and has spent in the midterms to the tune of tens of millions of dollars while rarely mentioning its top issue.The companies behind the spending have somewhat different policy agendas. Anthropic generally supports stricter regulation on A.I. development, while OpenAI, tends to push for fewer guardrails to allow for the acceleration of A.I. development. But they both share the same goal: promoting A.I. and electing policymakers who hold a favorable view of it.SKIP ADVERTISEMENT The Times analysis of federal advertising and campaign outreach expenditures made by the four major super PACs during this cycle showed that they have spent far more money in support of Democrats \u2014 $28 million to back 21 Democrats and nearly $19 million to boost 30 Republicans \u2014 and that the candidates they backed almost always won.Rewarding the A.I.-FriendlyLate last year, Representative Valerie P. Foushee, a Democrat who represents most of North Carolina\u2019s research triangle, was staring down a formidable primary challenge. A PAC aligned with Anthropic spent $1.6 million to help Representative Valerie P. Foushee, Democrat of North Carolina, win her primary. Eric Lee for The New York Times Then, two days before Nida Allam, a younger, more progressive candidate who had challenged her in the past, announced that she was running again against Ms. Foushee, Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the Democratic leader, named the congresswoman as co-chairwoman of the party\u2019s new Commission on A.I. and the Innovation Economy.Two months later, the Anthropic-aligned Jobs and Democracy PAC spent $1.6 million in support of Ms. Foushee. She won narrowly, defeating Ms. Allam by less than 1 percentage point.\u201cThese committees and task forces \u2014 they\u2019re basically a flag or indicator to the lobbyist industry that these are people who will have decision-making power over your industry and so you need to go spend money on their campaigns,\u201d Ms. Allam said in a recent interview. \u201cNo one is spending that amount of money unless they\u2019re getting something in return.\u201dIn a statement, Ms. Foushee denied that the money had bought any favorable treatment for A.I., saying that her work on the issue \u201chas centered on establishing guardrails, holding corporations accountable, and protecting our children, communities and jobs.\u201dShe pointed to legislation she joined after her primary win that would tax large A.I. companies to establish a federal jobs program and direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology \u201cto ensure proper watermarking, digital fingerprinting and metadata is required for audio and visual content generated by artificial intelligence.\u201dThat record, Ms. Foushee said, \u201cclearly demonstrates that I am here to put A.I. regulations in place that prioritize people over corporations and billionaires.\u201dSKIP ADVERTISEMENT Still, unlike many Democrats who have aggressively criticized the industry, Ms. Foushee, a member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee who also sits on a bipartisan A.I. task force, had already signaled an embrace of the technology. In 2024, she led legislation that aimed to increase diversity in A.I. research and education.(She was not the only Democrat on the party\u2019s A.I. task force to receive the industry\u2019s largess. Public First bought ads in support of Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey that advocate implementing A.I. safeguards, including one that praises him as someone who \u201ccan make sure A.I. serves us \u2014 not the other way around.\u201d)In Washington State, American Mission waded into the G.O.P. primary to replace Representative Dan Newhouse, who is retiring at the end of this Congress, to back Amanda McKinney. Ms. McKinney, a Yakima County commissioner, won President Trump\u2019s endorsement this cycle, but was running against a former racecar driver who had won Mr. Trump\u2019s endorsement in 2024 when he challenged Mr. Newhouse.\u201cShe believes the United States must lead in artificial intelligence and advanced technologies, not surrender leadership to China or other adversaries,\u201d her campaign website says. \u201cAmanda opposes heavy-handed regulation that stifles innovation or drives jobs overseas.\u201dAmerican Mission spent about $780,000 to support Ms. McKinney. She advanced from her primary with 35 percent of the vote.Punishing the SkepticsWith other seats, in Utah, Illinois and New York, the PACs moved to undercut candidates who had established themselves as foes of A.I.The most prominent example was in the primary to succeed Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York. The race was inundated by outside spending after Alex Bores, an assemblyman, sponsored legislation seeking to regulate advanced artificial intelligence models. That set off a multimillion-dollar influx from rival A.I. interests, with Think Big, aligned with OpenAI, attacking Mr. Bores and Jobs and Democracy, aligned with Anthropic, defending him. He narrowly lost the race.Along with Ms. Foushee\u2019s contest in North Carolina and a primary in the district of Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, the race drew the most money from the A.I. PACs this cycle.In Utah, Think Big intervened to boost Ben McAdams, a former Democratic congressman.SKIP ADVERTISEMENT It was not expected to be a highly competitive primary, and was made even less so after Punchbowl News unearthed a series of old posts in which his opponent, Mr. Blouin, joked about sexual assault and made offensive comments about women and Mormons. Mr. McAdams made no mention of A.I. on his campaign website, though he wrote an opinion essay arguing that schools \u201cshould begin treating A.I. fluency as a basic form of literacy.\u201d He said he opposed the construction of a 40,000-acre A.I. data-center campus proposed in the district.But Mr. Blouin, the state senator, described himself as a \u201cleading skeptic of the push for unchecked growth of data centers,\u201d and grew increasingly vocal about A.I. and data-center regulation as the race went on.Think Big spent about $1.1 million on television and digital ads and text-message blasts supporting Mr. McAdams. Asked for comment, Mr. McAdams reiterated a previous statement he had made during a June debate, in which he said that \u201cevery member of Congress needs to be proactive in providing oversight of A.I. in order to protect jobs, our kids, the environment and the fabric of our communities.\u201d\u201cThat will require federal guardrails to make sure this technology happens carefully and transparently, with appropriate regulation, strong oversight, human accountability, and safeguards for data privacy and civil rights,\u201d he said. \u201cA.I. could potentially cure cancer, but it could also destroy our kids. I believe thoughtful policy can unleash the good and stop the bad.\u201dAnd in a pair of crowded Democratic primaries in the Chicago area and parts of central Illinois, Think Big spent a combined $2.6 million in support of two centrist former members of Congress \u2014 Melissa Bean and Mr. Jackson \u2014 who were both running against more progressive opponents. An OpenAI-aligned PAC supported former Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. in his primary for an open House seat in Illinois, but he lost to Donna Miller, a Cook County commissioner. Jeenah Moon\/Reuters Mr. Jackson was lagging in fund-raising behind both Robert Peters, a state senator, and Donna Miller, a Cook County commissioner. In the two months before the primary, his campaign raised just $72,000, compared with Ms. Miller\u2019s $670,000 and Mr. Peters\u2019s $224,000.That is when Mr. Jackson leaned into talking about A.I. He cited it in an opinion column touting the benefits of the technology for family caregivers, discussed it at a local candidate forum and even used it in an ad in which A.I. simulated the voice of former Representative Bobby Rush, whose vocal cords had been damaged by cancer, offering his endorsement of Mr. Jackson.The progressive candidate in that race, Mr. Peters, had supported a law banning A.I. mental health therapy, and legislation creating legal safeguards for artists whose work was copied or reproduced using A.I.As Think Big began pouring money in support of Mr. Jackson into the race, Fairshake, a pro-cryptocurrency group, began running advertisements against Mr. Peters, who was backed by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and other progressives, accusing him of being beholden to corporate interests.\u201cFor me,\u201d Mr. Peters said, \u201cit was like a punishment on my legislative record.\u201dSKIP ADVERTISEMENT In the end, neither man won the primary. The victor, Ms. Miller, did not receive any money from A.I. interests. But they may have seen her as an ally, anyway.The A.I. section of the \u201cPriorities\u201d section of Ms. Miller\u2019s campaign website is roughly seven times as long as all other issue sections, including health care and jobs.\u201cI\u2019ll support responsible innovation in technology, digital assets and business development that benefits working people and local communities,\u201d she wrote.Backing the Front-RunnersThe A.I. groups donated to clear front-runners in primaries all across the country, including favorites of party leaders, many of them Republican. Representative Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, who was widely expected to win the nomination to replace Markwayne Mullin in the Senate, received nearly $1.3 million from American Mission and Defending Our Values before his victory in June. Representative Kevin Hern prevailed in his primary to replace Markwayne Mullin in the Senate. He received backing from Anthropic and OpenAI. Nate Billings\/Associated Press Defending Our Values also supported Carlos De La Cruz, the brother of Representative Monica De La Cruz of Texas, who both received speaking slots at the midterms convention in Dallas. Mr. De La Cruz is favored to win his election; the nonpartisan Cook Political Report recently rated Ms. De La Cruz\u2019s race as a \u201ctossup.\u201dAmerican Mission spent about $375,000 to support Senator Lindsey Graham for his primary campaign in South Carolina, though it was never expected to be particularly competitive. After he died, the super PAC spent nearly $1.2 million supporting his sister, Darline, in the primary and general contests.A Vanishing Money TrailWith five weeks left until the midterms, the A.I. groups have yet to wade into many general election contests.American Mission has doled out roughly $500,000 each on behalf of three Republican candidates for Senate who are running in less competitive races: Representative Julia Letlow in Louisiana, and Senators Darline Graham of South Carolina and Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi. Think Big, the Democratic super PAC, has spent nearly $300,000 to support three House candidates \u2014 Representatives Greg Stanton of Arizona, Emilia Sykes of Ohio and Steven Horsford of Nevada \u2014 as well as roughly $50,000 to support Representative Joseph D. Morelle in New York.The amounts could grow. But political operatives closely following their spending believe that the groups will have to shift their strategy amid the furious outpouring of anti-A.I. sentiment, and will instead move money through other means. That could include donating directly to the major political PACs associated with House Democrats or Republicans, or establishing smaller, more obscure groups to move the money through, as AIPAC has done.Usamah Andrabi, the communications director for Justice Democrats, the ultraprogressive organization that backed many candidates whom A.I. groups spent against, said the industry\u2019s influence was already becoming as difficult to track as that of AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups.\u201cThere was a time where I could tell you every Israel lobby super PAC, and I cannot tell you that anymore because there\u2019s so many pop-up PACs, there\u2019s so many shell PACs, there\u2019s so many pass-throughs,\u201d Mr. Andrabi said. \u201cAnd I think the same thing is happening with the A.I. lobby.\u201d About the dataThe Times identified four federal super PACs that are aligned with OpenAI and Anthropic, two of the leading artificial intelligence model developers.The Times focused on those four PACs because they met three criteria: They received the majority of their funding from either Leading the Future or Public First Action (or its affiliated super PAC, Public First), the most prominent political organizations aligned with each of the companies; they received no monetary contributions from any other PAC; and they have spent money on congressional races this year.The Times examined all spending in support or opposition of candidates during the 2026 election cycle, based on the super PACs\u2019 Federal Election Commission filings as of late September.To analyze the content of television and digital ads, The Times reviewed videos that were gathered by AdImpact, a media tracking firm. The Times excluded ads that were shortened or substantially similar versions of other ads. \nCorrection:\u00a0Sept. 29, 2026An earlier version of this story misstated the backing that Representative Kevin Hern, Republican of Oklahoma, received from the A.I. industry. Super PACs aligned with two major A.I. companies spent money on advertising in support of him, they did not donate directly to him.",
    "published_at": "2026-09-29T04:02:54+00:00",
    "author_name": "Catie Edmondson, Matt Zdun, Daniel Wood",
    "site_name": "The New York Times",
    "section": "Politics",
    "publisher": "The New York Times Company",
    "ai_headline": "A.I. Groups Are Spending Millions to Influence the Midterms See how groups aligned with Anthropic and OpenAI have funneled major money into the fight for control of Congress.",
    "ai_simplified_title": "AI Groups Spend Millions to Influence 2026 Midterm Elections",
    "ai_excerpt": "A I Groups Are Spending Millions to Influence the Midterms See how groups aligned with Anthropic and OpenAI have funneled major money into the fight for control of Congress By",
    "ai_subject_tags": [
        "Artificial Intelligence",
        "Midterm Elections",
        "Campaign Finance",
        "Lobbying",
        "Political Spending",
        "OpenAI",
        "Anthropic",
        "AI",
        "Super PACs",
        "Political Influence"
    ],
    "ai_context_type": "Analysis",
    "ai_context_details": {
        "tone": "analytical",
        "perspective": "neutral",
        "audience": "general",
        "credibility_indicators": [
            "data_cited",
            "expert_quotes",
            "federal_campaign_finance_data_analysis",
            "named_candidates",
            "specific_spending_figures",
            "direct_quotes"
        ]
    },
    "ai_source_vector": null,
    "ai_confidence_score": 0.9999999999999999,
    "ai_extraction_metadata": {
        "extracted_at": "2026-09-30T14:01:15.469865Z",
        "ai_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
        "extraction_method": "automated",
        "content_length": 6024,
        "metadata_prompt_body_chars": 6024,
        "metadata_prompt_truncated": false,
        "url": "https:\/\/nytimes.com\/interactive\/2026\/09\/29\/us\/politics\/ai-super-pac-money-midterm-elections.html",
        "existing_metadata": {
            "author_name": null,
            "published_at": null,
            "domain_name": "nytimes.com",
            "site_name": null,
            "section": null,
            "publisher": null
        },
        "openai_refusal_gemini_fallback": false,
        "chunking_used": true,
        "total_chunks": 3,
        "chunk_merge_method": "comprehensive",
        "merged_at": "2026-09-30T14:01:20.261112Z"
    }
}

{
    "extracted_at": "2026-09-30T14:01:15.469865Z",
    "ai_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
    "extraction_method": "automated",
    "content_length": 6024,
    "metadata_prompt_body_chars": 6024,
    "metadata_prompt_truncated": false,
    "url": "https:\/\/nytimes.com\/interactive\/2026\/09\/29\/us\/politics\/ai-super-pac-money-midterm-elections.html",
    "existing_metadata": {
        "author_name": null,
        "published_at": null,
        "domain_name": "nytimes.com",
        "site_name": null,
        "section": null,
        "publisher": null
    },
    "openai_refusal_gemini_fallback": false,
    "chunking_used": true,
    "total_chunks": 3,
    "chunk_merge_method": "comprehensive",
    "merged_at": "2026-09-30T14:01:20.261112Z"
}