How some US midterms candidates are using social media posts and niche buzzwords on their websites to signal to crypto and AI super PACs they want their cash
The A.I. and crypto industries entered this year with nearly $250 million combined to spend on politics, and a battle plan to shape the regulatory landscape in their favor.
New York Times
Context & Ripple Effects
AI political spending is becoming an organized contest rather than a one-off campaign intervention: coverage has described a $265M fundraising divide between AI regulation camps and Leading the Future’s $125M-plus effort to influence midterm races.
This report shows the candidate-side adaptation to that capital. Public-facing AI and crypto language can function as a low-cost signal to groups seeking allies for their preferred regulatory agenda.
First-order effects
Candidates using the relevant posts and terminology become easier for AI- and crypto-aligned super PACs to identify, evaluate and potentially support.
Industry political groups gain a clearer channel for directing their nearly $250M combined political budget toward candidates receptive to their regulatory priorities.
Second-order effects
Campaign messaging may increasingly include sector-specific policy cues aimed at outside spenders, not only at voters or local constituencies.
The signaling market becomes more contested as pro-regulation networks, including a planned counterweight to Leading the Future, seek candidates who will resist industry-friendly positions.
Third-order effects
If this persists, AI and crypto policy positions could become a more explicit fundraising and candidate-screening criterion in federal elections, concentrating industry influence around regulatory outcomes.
The pattern points to a more state-mediated technology sector: political access and regulatory alignment may become more important competitive assets alongside product and capital execution.
The trend: AI and crypto are building durable election-finance machinery to turn regulatory preferences into electoral influence.
Very good (as usual) @ShaneGoldmacher story about the “winks and nods” candidates are giving to get crypto/AI PACs to spend money for them https://www.nytimes.com/...
NEW 1/28: Jesse Jackson Jr. writes an opinion piece hailing the benefits of AI for caregiving. 2/10: An AI super PAC announces plans to spend $1.1 million for him. My dive into the winking signals of support for AI and cyrpto $$$ from candidates —> https://www.nytimes.com/...
@rcbregman Hi 👋 I'm the guy they are trying to destroy. The best way to ensure other electeds also stand up for us is to show them that running on reasonable AI regulations wins. Follow along to help support!
The AI money machine is diving into the fight for Congress. A Super PAC funded by AI industry leaders is targeting pro-regulation candidate Alex Bores — and building a strategy that other politicians will have to contend with. https://www.politico.com/...
“Leading the Future's goal is not actually to kill Alex's race. Their goal ... is to signal to legislators in other races, in other states, that if you step out of line in this way, this is what we're going to do to you.” @nancyscola https://www.politico.com/...
BOMBSHELL: Sam Altman, Marc Andreessen & Joe Lonsdale's $125M SuperPAC has a simple strategy. Destroy *anyone* who tries to regulate AI. They want to make an example of AI safety advocates so brutal that no politician dares touch the issue again. [image]
So a co-founder of Palantir is funding political attack ads against a guy pushing for AI regulation, who used to work at Palantir, using the fact that he worked at Palantir against him. — (FWIW, I think Bores has some very bad regulation ideas, but still...) — www.politico.co…
Great article on underbelly of a Big Tech Super PAC, shamelessly spending millions of dollars to defeat a guy running for congress. The goal isn't just to defeat him, but send a message.