# AI money spent big in the midterms — and mostly on safe bets

Published 2026-11-04T20:54:23+00:00 · Updated 2026-11-04T20:54:25+00:00 · By superintelligencenews@gmail.com
Canonical: https://superintelligencenews.com/companies/ai-politics-leading-the-future-midterm-spending/

> Leading the Future spent heavily in the 2026 midterms to support pro-AI candidates, but most of the money went into safe races, limiting its clear electoral impact. The network still has over $20 million left and may face fresh scrutiny as Democrats eye hearings and subpoenas on Big Tech.

## Key facts

- Leading the Future launched in August 2025 with about $100 million in initial backing.
- WIRED reported the network spent about $26 million on primary independent expenditures and around $10 million in the general-election phase.
- The network exits the midterms with just over $20 million cash on hand.
- American Mission gave $3 million supporting Byron Donalds for governor, WIRED reported.
- Jared Moskowitz won re-election in Florida with Think Big support, while Don Davis defeated Laurie Buckhout in North Carolina’s 1st district.

Leading the Future, a pro-AI super PAC network backed by Silicon Valley heavyweights, poured millions into the 2026 midterms but appears to have had limited decisive impact because much of the money went to races that were already leaning one way or the other. The network leaves the election with just over $20 million still in hand, while its favored candidates posted a mixed record that included some clear wins and some losses.

## What Leading the Future tried to do

Leading the Future launched in August 2025 with an initial war chest of about $100 million and a simple political pitch: oppose policies it sees as stifling innovation. According to WIRED, the effort brought together a structure of 501(c)(4) groups and federal and state super PACs, a setup that let the network move money and message across multiple political channels.

The backers named in WIRED’s reporting included Andreessen Horowitz, Joe Lonsdale and [OpenAI](https://openai.com/) co-founder Greg Brockman. The network’s setup was also described as resembling Fairshake, the high-profile pro-crypto PAC model that used coordinated spending to shape congressional races.

## How did the network spend its money?

It spent heavily on primaries, then shifted to safer general-election contests. WIRED reported about $26 million in independent expenditures on primaries, followed by roughly $10 million total in the general-election phase.

The spending pattern suggests a network trying to build leverage and credibility in politics rather than betting everything on a handful of swing-seat outcomes. That strategy can help shape the debate, but it also makes it harder to claim a clean electoral knockout if the races were never truly up for grabs.

### By the numbers

| Metric | Figure | What WIRED said it represented |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Initial war chest | About $100 million | Money available when the network launched in August 2025 |
| Primary spending | $26 million | Independent expenditures in primary races |
| General-election spending | About $10 million | Total spent in the general-election phase |
| Cash left after midterms | Just over $20 million | Remaining funds after the election cycle |
| Q2 donations | Zero | Reported donations in the second quarter |
| Q3 donations | Zero | Reported donations in the third quarter |

## Why it matters

AI politics is no longer just about technical standards or abstract policy arguments. It is now tied to campaign money, attack ads, candidate endorsements and the question of who gets to set the rules for the industry in Washington.

That matters for readers because AI policy fights are increasingly centered on safety regulation, data center growth and tech industry influence. A network like Leading the Future is trying to make sure candidates who are friendly to AI expansion survive primaries and elections. If it can shape who gets elected — or even just who worries about being targeted — it may influence how lawmakers talk about AI before any bill is written.

The story also matters because Democrats are already signaling hearings and subpoenas for Big Tech after the election. If that momentum turns into formal scrutiny, the political spending around AI could become part of a broader fight over corporate influence, disclosure and policymaking power.

## What the race results showed

WIRED’s reporting points to a mixed scoreboard. The network fielded dozens of winning congressional candidates from both parties, but not all of its spending translated into clear success in the places it mattered most.

One of the most closely watched examples was New York’s 12th congressional district primary. Leading the Future spent millions attacking Alex Bores, while Public First spent $15 million boosting him. Bores finished second, underscoring how much money can be burned in a race without producing a simple winner-take-all narrative for either side.

Elsewhere, the network’s preferred candidates and allies produced a patchwork of results in contests that were not all equally competitive.

- Darline Graham lost the South Carolina Senate race after American Mission gave her more than $2 million.
- Jared Moskowitz won re-election in Florida with Think Big support.
- Don Davis beat Laurie Buckhout in North Carolina’s 1st district.
- Sam Forstag led Aaron Flint in Montana’s 1st, though the Associated Press had not yet called the race.

## Who were the network’s political arms backing?

WIRED described the network as split between two main ideological lanes. American Mission largely backed Republicans, while Think Big largely backed Democrats. That arrangement is notable because it suggests the network was less about a single party and more about keeping AI-friendly candidates in the conversation on both sides of the aisle.

Among the specific spending calls reported by WIRED, American Mission Florida gave $3 million supporting Byron Donalds for governor. That fits the broader pattern of the network trying to shape the environment around candidates who could be positioned as supportive of AI growth, innovation and industry priorities.

## How much influence did it really have?

That is the hardest question to answer, and the reporting does not offer a tidy verdict. The best read of the midterms is that Leading the Future showed it can spend at scale, mobilize across party lines and make itself a factor in some races. But because much of the money went to safe contests, its leverage over the final balance of power appears limited.

The distinction matters. Spending in safe races can still send a message to lawmakers, donors and rival groups: the AI industry is organized, well funded and willing to intervene. But if the candidates were already likely to win or lose, then the money may have bought visibility more than electoral change.

> “The purpose of that was to bully lawmakers into acquiescence”

That comment from Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, captures the critique from AI watchdogs and critics of industry political spending: that the point may be less about persuading voters and more about warning elected officials what happens if they cross a powerful sector.

## Background: how we got here

The rise of Leading the Future fits a broader pattern in modern campaign politics. Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited sums independently of candidates, and 501(c)(4) organizations can engage in political activity with less donor disclosure than candidate committees. That combination has made it easier for industry-aligned groups to build multi-layered political operations without placing every donor name at the center of the campaign.

AI has become especially fertile ground for that kind of spending. As lawmakers debate safety regulation, the siting of data centers, the use of training data and the power of major tech companies, the industry has sought to shape who writes the rules. The result is a political environment where campaign money, policy arguments and business strategy are increasingly intertwined.

WIRED’s comparison to Fairshake is revealing. The crypto-aligned network became a model for large, coordinated industry spending that could influence federal races without relying on a single candidate committee or a single public-facing message. Leading the Future appears to be applying a similar logic to AI.

## What the election night evidence suggests

Election-night data does not point to a dramatic, sweeping proving ground for AI money. WIRED noted that an NBC exit poll found 56% of respondents saying AI and data centers mattered majorly to their vote, which suggests the topic has reached the electorate. But awareness is not the same as direct influence from one particular network.

The cleanest takeaway is that AI has arrived as a political issue, but the spending around it has not yet shown that it can deterministically flip the largest races. In the cases WIRED highlighted, the network was often active in contests that did not hinge on one last ad buy.

### Direct quote from a backer-side operative

> “Voters in both parties delivered the same verdict tonight”

That line from Brad Carson, co-founder of Public First Action, reflects the broader argument from pro-AI and pro-tech operatives: that candidates and voters are responding to the issue, but not in a simple partisan pattern. In practice, the mixed results cut both ways. They show the issue is real, while also showing the limits of paid persuasion.

## What happens next

Several questions now hang over the network’s future. WIRED reported that Leading the Future still has just over $20 million cash on hand, so it has the resources to continue operating if it chooses. But whether it keeps spending after the midterms, and where, remains open.

There is also the matter of political follow-through. Democrats are signaling hearings and subpoenas for Big Tech after the election, which could pull AI spending, lobbying and disclosure rules into a new round of scrutiny. If that happens, groups like Leading the Future may find themselves not only funding races, but also becoming examples in hearings about how industry money enters politics.

Finally, one race still had an unresolved element in WIRED’s report: Montana’s 1st congressional district, where Sam Forstag led Aaron Flint but the Associated Press had not yet called the contest. That leaves at least one possible final data point for assessing how effective the network’s spending was in close races.

## Bottom line

Leading the Future emerged as one of the most ambitious pro-AI political networks yet, but the midterms suggest its strongest skill may be influence-building rather than outright electoral control. It spent heavily, spread money across both parties and kept a large reserve in the bank. What it has not yet proven is that those resources can reliably change the outcome of the most important races.

For now, the bigger story may be less about one network’s win-loss record than about a larger shift in American politics: AI has become a major target for organized campaign spending, and the fight over its future is moving from policy papers into primaries, attack ads and subpoenas.

**Source:** WIRED reporting on Leading the Future and the 2026 midterms.

## Frequently asked questions

### What is Leading the Future?

Leading the Future is a pro-AI super PAC network launched in August 2025 with about $100 million in backing. WIRED reported that it used a mix of 501(c)(4) groups and federal and state super PACs to support candidates aligned with its anti-regulation, pro-innovation message.

### Did Leading the Future change the outcome of the midterms?

The direct answer is that its impact appears limited. WIRED reported the network spent heavily, but much of that money went into safe races, which made it harder to show decisive influence on the final balance of power.

### How much money did the network spend?

WIRED reported about $26 million in primary independent expenditures and roughly $10 million in general-election spending. The network still had just over $20 million cash on hand after the midterms, according to the report.

### Which candidates did the network support?

The network backed a range of candidates through its political arms. WIRED said American Mission largely supported Republicans and Think Big largely supported Democrats, with examples including support for Byron Donalds, Jared Moskowitz and other congressional candidates.

### Why does this matter for AI policy?

It matters because AI policy is becoming a major political battleground. The spending shows that industry-backed groups are trying to shape who writes the rules on safety, data centers and tech oversight, while Democrats are signaling possible hearings and subpoenas.

## Sources

- [WIRED](https://www.wired.com/story/the-biggest-pro-ai-super-pac-network-didnt-really-impact-the-midterms/)