Money, Politics and AI
getty
Artificial intelligence has sparked a $150 million political battle for federal preemption. Congress must soon decide whether to include preemptive language in the National Defense Authorization Act, while the White House considers an executive order that could override state rules. Two coalitions are fighting to shape the outcome. One side, backed by some of Silicon Valley’s biggest investors, wants to block state oversight and create a single federal framework. The other, funded by security-focused donor networks, fights to preserve state power if Congress can’t pass important national standards. Each has built a structured network of Super PACs, donors and advocacy groups. Their battle is over who writes the rules, who enforces them, and whether states can act at all.
Advocacy against federal preemption
Public Firsta bipartisan initiative led by former Reps. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) and Brad Carson (D-Okla.), has launched two affiliated Super PACs to support candidates promoting stronger AI oversight. Stewart said the effort is aimed at ensuring “meaningful oversight of the most powerful technology ever created.” The group expects to raise at least $50 million for the 2026 cycle.
In addition to Super PACs, Public First’s nonprofit arm supports stronger export controls on advanced chips, transparency requirements for AI labs and state-level regulations that address risks to children, workers and the public. The group opposes federal prevention efforts that would block state progress without establishing meaningful national safeguards. Public First says 97% of Americans want AI safety rules.
Last year, in parallel, Carlson co-founded the research think tank Americans for Responsible Innovation (ARI), where he still serves as its president. It quickly became one of the most active public interest organizations in the AI governance space. ARI’s leadership includes Eric Gastfriend, co-founder and technology entrepreneur, and a board of directors that includes, among others, former Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), economist Erik Brynjolfsson, who directs the Digital Economy Lab at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered University of the California, Study Art. economist and legal scholar Gillian Hadfield from the University of Toronto and former policy advisor at OpenAI;
ARI prioritizes protecting against AI-enabled fraud and risks to minors, national security threats, and long-term border model risks, while also calling for expanded funding from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST is a federal agency that develops technical standards and test methods for emerging technologies.
ARI places himself as industry independent, funded by its founders and effective altruistically aligned donors focused on long-term AI risks. Critics argue that EA has used extensive funding to push overly restrictive regulations.
This coalition’s donor base is not dominated by Big Tech. Instead, it includes investors concerned about long-term risks and workers from security-minded labs, particularly Anthropic. The New York Times was mentioned that Anthropic employees and executives have also explored political engagement, including discussions of a possible Super PAC to counter the $100 million LTF.
This group’s political stance is based on state action, while Congress remains deadlocked. THE LAW OF ELEVATIONwritten by New York Assemblyman Alex Bores (D), who recently announced his candidacy for Congress, represents this approach. Requires safety disclosures and risk assessments. It also includes fines of up to thirty million dollars for non-compliance. Bores’ campaign became a lightning rod for the efforts of those opposed to AI regulation, making him the first official target of one of the LTF Super PACs.
of California Border AI Transparency Act (SB53), now enacted into law, follows a similar pattern. Public First and its allies argue that states act as laboratories that discover what works, provide early enforcement and provide input needed to shape a future federal law with meaningful protections.
Defending deregulation and federal preemption
The opposing coalition has consolidated around Driving the Future (LTF), the first of which was launched in August. They operate through a tiered structure: federal and state Super PACs run independent campaign expenditures supporting pro-innovation candidates in primaries and general elections. Their nonprofit advocacy arms handle policy development, legislative deliverables, grassroots organizing and rapid response to opposition narratives. The network launched in New York, California, Illinois and Ohio and plans to expand nationwide in 2026.
LTF is led by GOP strategist Zac Moffatt and Democratic operative Josh Vlasto. Their message: a patchwork of state laws will cost US jobs and cede AI leadership to China. At their launch, Moffatt and Vlasto he said The Wall Street Journal reports that “There is a huge force out there seeking to slow the development of artificial intelligence, prevent the American worker from benefiting from the US’s leadership in global innovation and job creation, and create a patchwork of regulations.”
The network was launched with $100 million from Silicon Valley investors including Marc Andreessen, OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman and Perplexity.
It aims to defeat candidates who support AI regulation and elect those who favor a federal framework aligned with industry interests. Its first target was Bores, whose congressional campaign is becoming the first example of AI regulation shaping election strategy.
LTF’s advocacy arm, Build American AIstarted a value of ten million dollars national campaign calling for a single federal law that would preempt state regulations. Nathan Leamer, its executive director and former FCC counsel, posted on X that “the US won the Internet economy because we created a national framework for its proliferation. We must not allow the balkanization of AI politics to stop us.”
Beyond LTF, big tech companies like Meta (the parent company of Facebook) have become an additional force in support of the deregulation agenda. In August, Meta launched a California-focused Super PAC, Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across Californiawith the goal of electing candidate states that favor innovation over regulation. In September, Meta followed with a national PAC called the American Technology Excellence Project to support AI-friendly candidates in state races across the country. This mirrors the strategy used by the crypto industry, which has proven that concentrated spending in state matches can quickly reshape federal debates.
From a thought leadership perspective, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), which is effectively the primary policy and personnel hub for President Trump’s political movement and his current administration, disclosed the America First AI Agenda. It emphasizes widespread adoption of AI for economic prosperity, worker-centered growth through high-paying industrial jobs, protecting children from AI risks, and defending against foreign adversaries. The agenda calls for streamlining state-level licensing approvals and repealing state laws that impose regulatory costs to support energy abundance.
AFPI’s AI team is led by Chris Stewart in a separate role from his leadership at Public First. This dual position reflects a deeper split within the Republican Party. Stewart’s role at Public First aligns him with national security conservatives who support AI safeguards. His role at AFPI aligns him with pro-business conservatives who favor rapid innovation, a national framework and federal preemption of state laws.
Dean Ball, former White House senior AI policy advisor and now a member of the AFPI AI team, declare yourself that “At least some aspects of artificial intelligence are inherently matters of interstate commerce, and therefore the jurisdiction of the federal government. We should be regulating these aspects of artificial intelligence like one country, not 50 states.”
The Preemption Showdown
These coalitions diverge sharply.
Leading the Future and its affiliated groups argue that a single national standard is necessary to maintain competitiveness. They identify state laws as costly barriers that could slow the development and deployment of advanced systems. Public First and its allies counter that a weak federal law designed primarily to nullify state protections would erode trust and leave consumers exposed. They argue that states have filled a policy gap.
The scale of the spending reveals how quickly artificial intelligence has moved to the center of American politics. Pressure for federal action is mounting. Congress faces a decision point on whether to include preemptive language in the National Defense Authorization Act that must pass. The administration has issued an executive order for advance payment. With the economic impact of AI and the displacement of workers rising in line with voter concerns, the window to resolve this fight is rapidly closing.
