New York State Assemblyman Alex Bores launches nonprofit Who Decides, which raised $10M and aims to raise $20M more by summer 2027 to shape Democratic AI policy
Alex Bores, who lost a congressional primary contest that revolved around A.I. regulation, is trying to position himself at the center …
Context & Ripple Effects
Bores’s congressional campaign became a visible contest over AI safeguards: the pro-AI Leading the Future PAC ran attack ads targeting his Palantir work, while Chris Larsen planned $3.5 million in support for his candidacy. His primary loss to Micah Lasher ended that electoral route without ending the policy fight.
Who Decides turns Bores from a candidate into an organizer with $10 million in initial backing and a stated $20 million additional fundraising target through summer 2027. Its purpose is to give Democratic AI policy a dedicated institution rather than leaving the debate to individual campaigns.
First-order effects
- Who Decides gains funding to organize Democratic AI-policy advocacy, while Bores gains a platform to influence the party outside elected office.
- Democratic candidates seeking positions on AI face a better-resourced source of policy framing and political coordination.
Second-order effects
- Leading the Future and other pro-AI political funders must contend with an organized Democratic counterweight rather than contesting AI regulation only race by race.
- AI companies and advocacy groups seeking influence with Democrats gain a new policy intermediary whose positions can shape which AI issues reach candidates and party networks.
Third-order effects
- If Who Decides can translate fundraising into candidate adoption, AI policy will become a standing component of Democratic campaign infrastructure, not solely a legislative or corporate-lobbying issue.
- The contest over AI governance is shifting toward durable political organizations that compete to define a party’s acceptable balance between deployment and safeguards.
The trend: AI governance is becoming an organized partisan-infrastructure contest, with political groups funding policy agendas alongside individual candidates.