Source: Politics<\/p>\n
Democratic consultants are privately encouraging their battleground candidates to avoid talking about AI regulations out of fear that powerful tech groups will unleash a tidal wave of spending against them ahead of November.<\/p>\n
That guidance came from strategists in three separate top-tier House races, according to people involved in those races, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. And it follows a surge in AI panic on Capitol Hill as industry leaders warn about existential threats posed by their rapidly developing technology.<\/p>\n
Voters are increasingly worried about AI: About two-thirds of Americans<\/a> say there\u2019s a risk advanced AI could destroy humanity in a new POLITICO Poll. President Donald Trump has called that concern a “hoax,”<\/a> leaving an opening for Democrats to seize on the issue. But they still are grappling with how hard to go after big tech.<\/p>\n Senior Democrats and candidates are worried that if they go too hard in criticizing AI, industry-affiliated super PACs could drop millions more dollars against them<\/a>, according to interviews with more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers and strategists. They are especially worried about a slate of competitive races, including Reps. Don Davis in North Carolina, Marcy Kaptur in Ohio, Henry Cuellar in Texas and a handful of South Texas and Pennsylvania races, getting hit with even more spending on topics like AI.<\/p>\n The party is already struggling to keep up in the outside spending battle as Trump and his allies<\/a> including Elon Musk<\/a>, a major AI investor, flood the airwaves, though Musk\u2019s spending isn\u2019t primarily driven by AI concerns.<\/p>\n \u201cWe do need to be able to make sure that we\u2019re regulating [AI] and addressing those real fears,\u201d said one senior Democratic strategist working on Senate campaigns, who was granted anonymity to candidly discuss strategy. But \u201cwe don\u2019t want AI money coming in.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cLike any industry, there should be a conversation about guardrails,\u201d said Cuellar, who is trying to hold onto a GOP-leaning South Texas seat. \u201cBut, every member needs to make their own decision based on their district and beliefs.\u201d<\/p>\n Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the former Progressive Caucus chair, said she was also worried that pro-AI groups will start targeting key Democrats.<\/p>\n \u201cYou know, these AI groups \u2014 they come out and they say that they’re concerned, that they want regulation. But then they spend huge amounts of money on defeating anybody who wants legislative regulation,\u201d Jayapal said in an interview.<\/p>\n With AI regulation on congressional Democrats\u2019 agenda<\/a> if they take power next year, Jayapal said AI groups will be \u201cspending for candidates that they can count on to just allow them to write the bill.\u201d<\/p>\n Some top Democratic candidates and their campaigns are quietly trying to avoid crossing any red lines for tech super PACs \u2014 even as it\u2019s unclear exactly what those lines would be, after Musk and two of the biggest AI CEOs called for more regulation on the technology last week.<\/p>\n Democrats are especially wary of Leading the Future, a pro-AI industry super PAC that spent over $25 million in primary races this year and is backed by investors and executives of OpenAI. The rival super PAC network, Public First Action, pushes for AI regulation and is funded by OpenAI\u2019s chief competitor, Anthropic.<\/p>\n Asked by POLITICO, Leading the Future declined to name a specific policy on AI it opposes.<\/p>\n \u201cThe only people that have both threatened and carried out spending and intimidation tactics against Democratic members of Congress over their positions on AI are Public First and other groups funded by Anthropic and effective altruists,\u201d said Leading the Future spokesperson Josh Vlasto. \u201cOur agenda is and has always been Congress passing a strong and smart national regulation which has broad and building support in Congress and across the country.\u201d<\/p>\n On Wednesday, Leading the Future launched its first round of ads<\/a> in the general election through its Republican PAC. The group is spending $2 million to boost GOP Senate candidates Julia Letlow in Louisiana, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith in Mississippi, Sen. Darline Graham in South Carolina and Sen. Mike Rounds in South Dakota \u2014 four Republicans in marginally competitive races that are unlikely to determine Senate control.<\/p>\n The two AI groups have been at odds. They spent in different primary races and went up against each other in the primary for retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler\u2019s seat, where state Assemblymember Alex Bores\u2019 AI-centered campaign ignited a spending war<\/a>. A person familiar with Leading the Future\u2019s strategy, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, told POLITICO in June<\/a> that the group was unlikely to target another candidate this year with the kind of multi-million dollar negative ad deluge it dumped on Bores, and a person close to the group said that hasn\u2019t changed. Democrats believe the groups could battle against each other again in key races.<\/p>\n Brad Carson, the co-founder of Public First Action, said the network will \u201cabsolutely\u201d get involved in the general election.<\/p>\n Public First Action uses two \u201clitmus tests\u201d to weigh whether or not to jump into races, Carson said. If someone seeking office shows \u201cstrong support for export controls and strong opposition to the preemption of state laws regarding AI, absent a federal framework,\u201d then they are a prime candidate to receive the group\u2019s support.<\/p>\n And if a candidate were to hold the opposite position \u2014 opposition to export controls and support for the preemption of state laws \u2014 his group would be inclined to jump in and spend against them.<\/p>\n \u201cIt’s really about finding the people who want to step out and be heroes for you,\u201d Carson said.<\/p>\n On Wednesday, Anthropic\u2019s policy chief Sarah Heck<\/a> said at POLITICO\u2019s Decoded summit that the United States \u201cneeds to stay in the lead on AI\u201d over China, arguing \u201cyou can\u2019t do safety from second place.\u201d She agreed AI firms can\u2019t be left on their own to ensure safety within their own companies, but declined to endorse bipartisan legislation for external regulation.<\/p>\n Some Democrats want to go hard on regulating AI in spite of the risk of antagonizing pro-industry groups.<\/p>\n Abdul El-Sayed, Democrats\u2019 Senate nominee in Michigan, previously called for a regulatory crackdown on AI<\/a> and is now advocating for a \u201cfull pause at the frontier of research.\u201d<\/a> He told POLITICO in an interview on Wednesday that he\u2019d \u201crather be on the truth than dodge [AI industry] money.\u201d<\/p>\n Still, El-Sayed hasn\u2019t committed to running ads on the issue. Battleground Democratic Reps. Susie Lee (Nev.) and Greg Landsman (Ohio) also told POLITICO they weren\u2019t planning ads on AI safeguards, even as they advocate for more regulations. It\u2019s a sign that even as voters concerns\u2019 rise about the technology, it\u2019s not yet become a top issue for the November election.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Republicans are hoping that the AI super PACs might come in and help boost them in other states \u2014 like Georgia, where Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff has been aggressive in criticizing the industry, or Texas, where the GOP nominee, Attorney General Ken Paxton, has been slightly behind in most recent polls.\u201cWe could use the help in some races like that,\u201d said one GOP senator, granted anonymity to candidly discuss the internal conversations.<\/p>\n