Pro-AI super PAC network Leading the Future had little midterm impact, Wired finds

Wired reports that Leading the Future, the biggest pro-AI super PAC network, is leaving the midterm elections with just over $20 million still in the bank and a roster of dozens of successful congressional candidates from both parties. That looks like a win at first glance, Wired says, but the details differ: the donations went overwhelmingly to safe candidates, and the results in the small handful of riskier races it joined indicate that its plans to shape the election fell flat.

The network entered the scene in August 2025, vowing to "oppose policies that stifle innovation". It had a war chest of around $100 million from some of Silicon Valley's biggest tech billionaires, including Andreessen Horowitz, Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale and OpenAI's Greg Brockman, and was led by major political strategists. It was designed as a "structured ecosystem" made up of 501(c)(4) organizations and federal and state super PACs serving both parties: American Mission largely gives to Republicans, Think Big largely gives to Democrats. Its structure and overlapping strategists quickly drew comparisons to Fairshake, the pro-crypto super PAC network that dominated the 2024 election.

Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, told Wired the network came out threatening to spend millions against lawmakers in their primaries and reelection races, and that the aim was to bully lawmakers into acquiescence and keep them from sticking their necks out on AI safety or tech regulation. Leading the Future did not respond to requests for comment.

The clearest test was Alex Bores, a Democrat, former Palantir engineer and state lawmaker running in New York's 12th district on an AI safety platform. Late last year the network spent millions of dollars on attack ads against his primary bid. Haworth says it expected to bury him and parade the result as proof of its power. Instead, Bores' run became a high-profile proxy war between competing AI philosophies and raised his profile. Public First, a pro-AI safety network with significant financial backing from Anthropic, spent $15 million boosting him. Bores did not win, but he came second in a crowded primary field to Micah Lasher, who campaigned on tech accountability and AI safety.

Leading the Future spent about $26 million in independent expenditures on the primaries alone. Spending then tapered off: heading into the general election the network dropped about $10 million in total, overwhelmingly backing candidates in safe races. Its funding also fell away, with zero donations reported in the second and third quarters. Wired writes that the strategy seems to have shifted around the time stark polling showed widespread distrust of Big Tech and cronyism in Washington. An NBC exit poll found 56 percent of voters said AI and data centers played a "major" role in their vote. Haworth calls backing safe candidates "an influence play", an attempt to ingratiate the network with incoming members of Congress. Brad Carson, co-founder of Public First Action, says the midterms were a victory for AI safety and "a crushing blow to the AI industry's anti-regulatory efforts to buy a Congress that would look the other way."

The riskier races went badly. One of the biggest bets was Darline Graham, described as the sister of the late senator Lindsey Graham and an incumbent running for a full term in South Carolina. Her Democratic opponent Annie Andrews nicknamed her "Data Center Darline" for her enthusiastic support of AI and data center expansion. American Mission gave her more than $2 million; she lost with 46.5 percent, in a state that last elected a Democrat to the Senate in 1998.

Of the other toss-up House races the network weighed in on, almost all backed Republicans through American Mission. The exception was Democratic Florida representative Jared Moskowitz, funded through Think Big, who won by 13,000 votes over Scott Singer, the former mayor of Boca Raton. In North Carolina's 1st district, American Mission backed Republican Laurie Buckhout in her primary, while Guardrails Alliance, part of the AI safety network, backed Democrat Don Davis, who had cosponsored a bill to limit tax giveaways for data center development. Davis won. In Montana's first district the network backed Aaron Flint, who conceded to Democrat Sam Forstag, a wildland firefighter who advocated strict federal oversight of AI; the Associated Press had yet to call the race. In Florida, American Mission Florida, a state-level super PAC in the network, got $3 million in support of Republican gubernatorial candidate Byron Donalds, who opposes statewide bans or moratoriums on data centers.

Wired closes by saying Silicon Valley is bracing for an expected reckoning over the power and freedom it has enjoyed during Trump's second term. Democrats have vowed to bring Big Tech bosses to Capitol Hill for hearings, and Senator Ron Wyden signaled what is coming with a one-word post on X: "Subpoenas."

Key facts

Leading the Future, the biggest pro-AI super PAC network, leaves the midterms with just over $20 million in the bank, down from a war chest of around $100 million when it launched in August 2025.
It spent about $26 million in independent expenditures on the primaries, then dropped about $10 million in total heading into the general election, mostly on safe candidates; it reported zero donations in the second and third quarters.
Its riskier bets fared poorly: Darline Graham lost in South Carolina with 46.5 percent despite more than $2 million from American Mission, and Aaron Flint conceded in Montana's first district.
Its attack on Alex Bores in New York's 12th district backfired in profile terms: Public First, backed by Anthropic, spent $15 million for him, and he finished second to Micah Lasher, who also ran on AI safety.
An NBC exit poll found 56 percent of voters said AI and data centers played a "major" role in their vote; Democrats have vowed hearings for Big Tech bosses.

Why it matters

Leading the Future launched as the pro-AI industry's answer to Fairshake, the pro-crypto network that dominated 2024, with a threat to spend against lawmakers who pushed AI safety or regulation. Wired's reading is that the threat did not pay off in the places where it could have been tested. The network's money followed winners, while the highest-profile fights, Bores in New York and Graham in South Carolina, did not go its way. The story also frames what comes next: Democrats promising hearings for Big Tech executives and Senator Ron Wyden's one-word "Subpoenas."

Who it affects

Tech donors named in the piece, including Andreessen Horowitz, Joe Lonsdale and OpenAI's Greg Brockman, whose money funded the network. Candidates on both sides: Republicans backed through American Mission, Democrats through Think Big. The rival AI safety network Public First, which has significant financial backing from Anthropic, and its ally Guardrails Alliance. Lawmakers weighing AI safety or tech regulation positions, and Big Tech executives who may face congressional hearings.

How to use it

This is news analysis, not a product, so there is nothing to adopt. Its practical use is as a scorecard: the named races (New York's 12th, South Carolina's Senate seat, North Carolina's 1st, Montana's first, the Florida House and governor races) show where the network spent and how each came out. Wired's point about timing, that spending tapered off around when polling showed distrust of Big Tech, is a thing to watch in the next cycle.

How solid is it

The financial and race figures come from Wired's own reporting and are stated as fact, such as the $20 million in the bank, $26 million on primaries and Graham's 46.5 percent. The interpretation that safe-candidate giving was an "influence play" is Sacha Haworth's, the executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, and Brad Carson's "victory for AI safety" is the view of a Public First Action co-founder; both come from the critic side. Leading the Future did not respond to requests for comment, so its own account of its strategy is absent. Wired itself hedges the strategy shift with "seems to have shifted."

Risks and caveats

The headline verdict is Wired's judgment drawn from a small handful of riskier races, and Montana's first district had not been called by the Associated Press when the piece was written. The source gives no cause for the funding drop beyond the polling remark, no total spend across the whole cycle, and no outcome for the Florida governor's race. It also does not say how many of the dozens of winning candidates were in contested races. The Democratic plans for hearings and subpoenas are stated intentions, with no timeline given.

“They fully expected to bury him, put his head on a spike, and parade it around as proof that they could”

— Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, on the attack against Alex Bores, to Wired