Tech industry billionaire-backed super PAC Leading the Future spent over $8 million in an attempt to defeat New York Democratic assemblymember Alex Bores in a primary election to replace outgoing Rep. Jerry Nadler. Bores, who authored the RAISE Act, a landmark state AI safety law, ultimately finished just 4 percentage points behind the primary winner, assemblymember Micah Lasher. Despite the significant investment, Leading the Future has signaled it is unlikely to target other candidates with similar negative ad campaigns throughout the remainder of the 2026 election cycle.

The New York race emerged as a proxy battle between major tech companies, with OpenAI-linked interests funding Leading the Future and an Anthropic-linked super PAC network, Jobs and Democracy, spending $12 million to support Bores. While Leading the Future had at least $75 million in backing, including contributions from OpenAI president Greg Brockman and Andreessen Horowitz, the outcome drew intense public scrutiny toward the AI industry’s influence on jobs and safety. Lasher, the primary victor, has distanced himself from both sides of the tech power struggle, emphasizing his focus on protecting voters over industry interests.

Proponents of stricter AI regulation described the result as a strategic victory for the safety movement, noting that the campaign against Bores emboldened other candidates to challenge the industry. Brad Carson, co-lead of the group Public First, stated that the visibility of the Bores race proved the movement's fundraising strength and suggested it contributed to OpenAI distancing itself from Leading the Future’s aggressive tactics. Conversely, Adam Kovacevich, CEO of the Chamber of Progress, argued that the intervention against Bores was a unique outlier in the PAC’s strategy, which primarily focuses on supporting incumbents. Leading the Future has since pledged to pursue thoughtful engagement with policymakers but has not commented on future intervention plans, while regulation advocates express readiness for further high-profile conflicts regarding AI safety policies.

Tech industry billionaire-backed super PAC Leading the Future spent over $8 million in an attempt to defeat New York Democratic assemblymember Alex Bores in a primary election to replace outgoing Rep. Jerry Nadler. Bores, who authored the RAISE Act, a landmark state AI safety law, ultimately finished just 4 percentage points behind the primary winner, assemblymember Micah Lasher. Despite the significant investment, Leading the Future has signaled it is unlikely to target other candidates with similar negative ad campaigns throughout the remainder of the 2026 election cycle.

The New York race emerged as a proxy battle between major tech companies, with OpenAI-linked interests funding Leading the Future and an Anthropic-linked super PAC network, Jobs and Democracy, spending $12 million to support Bores. While Leading the Future had at least $75 million in backing, including contributions from OpenAI president Greg Brockman and Andreessen Horowitz, the outcome drew intense public scrutiny toward the AI industry’s influence on jobs and safety. Lasher, the primary victor, has distanced himself from both sides of the tech power struggle, emphasizing his focus on protecting voters over industry interests.

Proponents of stricter AI regulation described the result as a strategic victory for the safety movement, noting that the campaign against Bores emboldened other candidates to challenge the industry. Brad Carson, co-lead of the group Public First, stated that the visibility of the Bores race proved the movement's fundraising strength and suggested it contributed to OpenAI distancing itself from Leading the Future’s aggressive tactics. Conversely, Adam Kovacevich, CEO of the Chamber of Progress, argued that the intervention against Bores was a unique outlier in the PAC’s strategy, which primarily focuses on supporting incumbents. Leading the Future has since pledged to pursue thoughtful engagement with policymakers but has not commented on future intervention plans, while regulation advocates express readiness for further high-profile conflicts regarding AI safety policies.