---
layout: post
title: "Silicon Valley's $125 Million Campaign to Silence an AI Regulator"
description: "Big Tech is spending massive amounts to defeat a New York politician who dares to regulate AI. Here's what's really happening."
date: 2026-03-03 04:00:21 +0530
author: adam
image: 'https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1768697581060-52e2edbee7fa?q=80&w=2070'
video_embed:
tags: [news, tech, business]
tags_color: '#00ba65'
---
Alex Bores has a problem. He used to work at Palantir, built AI systems for immigration enforcement, and then quit over moral objections. Sounds like a redemption arc, right? Except Silicon Valley's biggest names have decided he's now their enemy number one, and they're spending an absolutely staggering amount of money to make sure he never gets elected to Congress.
The irony is almost too perfect to be real. The same tech leaders who claim to care about innovation and progress are dumping $125 million into a super PAC called Leading the Future specifically to take down candidates who want to regulate AI. Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, OpenAI President Greg Brockman, Andreessen Horowitz, and a bunch of other heavy-hitters are financing what amounts to a political hitjob.
And Bores is their first target.
## Why They're So Scared
Here's the thing that actually matters: Bores isn't some clueless politician who watched one Netflix documentary and decided to fear-monger about AI. He has a computer science background. He actually understands the technology. He's worked inside these companies. When he speaks about AI regulation, he's not guessing. He knows what he's talking about.
That's apparently terrifying to people like Lonsdale.
Last year, Bores sponsored the RAISE Act, an AI transparency bill that got signed into law in December. It's not some draconian measure that bans AI outright. It just requires large AI labs (those making over $500 million annually) to have publicly available safety plans and report catastrophic incidents. Boring stuff, honestly. Most industries would dream of such light-touch regulation.
But to the people funding Leading the Future? It might as well be the end of civilization.
## The Money Is Obscene
Let's talk about scale for a second, because this is where it gets properly wild. The average assembly race in New York raises maybe $100,000. Meta alone is dropping $65 million across state races through two separate super PACs. Leading the Future has committed to spending at least $10 million just on defeating Bores.
This isn't someone trying to have a conversation about <a href="https://infeeds.com/tags/?tag=technology">technology</a> policy. This is intimidation. This is an attempt to send a message: disagree with us on AI regulation and we will bury you financially.
"They're targeting me to make an example of me," Bores told TechCrunch. And you know what? He's probably right. If they can defeat someone with his credibility and background, they can defeat almost anyone.
The numbers get darker when you look at the bigger picture. AI companies, industry groups, and executives donated at least $83 million in 2025 to federal campaigns and committees. That's not some grassroots movement. That's concentrated wealth trying to shape the future of regulation.
## But There's Pushback
Not all of <a href="https://infeeds.com/tags/?tag=business">business</a> is aligned here, which is interesting. Anthropic, OpenAI's main competitor, is backing a different PAC called Public First Action that actually supports AI regulation focused on transparency and safety. They're spending $450,000 on Bores' race, which is nothing compared to the opposition but at least suggests some fracturing in the tech elite's united front.
There's also grassroots stuff happening inside tech companies themselves. Workers at the very firms trying to crush Bores' campaign are organizing to support candidates who want actual oversight. These aren't anti-AI radicals. They're employees who work in AI and actually care about how the technology gets deployed.
Bores has a point when he says most Americans probably fall somewhere in the middle. They use AI, see its potential, but also wonder if moving this fast without guardrails is insane. The government probably should have some role in ensuring this benefits more than just a handful of billionaires, right?
## The Real Question
What's actually troubling here isn't that tech leaders disagree with regulation. It's the scale of the money they're willing to spend to prevent anyone from even discussing it. That's not the behavior of people confident in their ideas. That's the behavior of people desperate to avoid accountability.
Bores may or may not win his race. But what happens over the next few election cycles will probably matter way more than any single politician, because we're going to find out whether this strategy works. If you can spend enough money to eliminate everyone who wants to regulate AI, then we've basically decided that regulation isn't going to happen through democratic processes.
And that's a hell of a precedent to set.
