They opened the polling site before dawn and the line already snaked around the block. A campaign ad—fifty seconds of accusation and a branded logo—kept replaying on a passerby’s phone. I watched a volunteer hand out literature while a text alert about a seven-figure ad buy buzzed across my screen.
You should care about this primary even if you don’t live in Manhattan. What happens in New York’s 12th Congressional District today will ripple through how lawmakers treat artificial intelligence across the country.
At a precinct table in Manhattan: the Washington money chase lands in a single House primary
The NY-12 race has become a battleground where national power, startup money, and regulatory fights meet in public. Outside groups have poured more than $40 million ($40,000,000; €37,000,000) into this one contest, and AdImpact says over $26 million ($26,000,000; €24,000,000) of that went straight to ads—one of the largest ad spends ever for a House primary.
I’ve covered campaigns where local contests felt local. This one feels like a capo calling the orchestra: every note affects policy and investment decisions elsewhere. You can see the tug-of-war in the candidate list: Micah Lasher, Alex Bores, Jack Schlossberg, George Conway and five others, each carrying different ideas about tech power and its limits.
Who is funding the NY-12 primary?
Think Big and its parent super PAC, Leading The Future, have been major spenders. Leading The Future launched last August with backing from Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI president Greg Brockman, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, and Perplexity. Their ad arm has concentrated opposition spending against Assemblymember Alex Bores.
But funding is not monochrome. Public First, formed by former Rep. Brad Carson, and its Jobs and Democracy PAC have funneled millions to support Bores—Anthropic alone gave $20 million ($20,000,000; €18,000,000) to Public First. OpenAI, as a company, has publicly distanced itself from Brockman’s personal donations, while Anthropic’s leaders have pushed for tighter federal guardrails.
Outside a campaign office: a war over AI policy looks more like a culture fight
You can feel this contest in one viral ad or one op-ed. The debate isn’t only about who governs New York’s Upper West Side; it’s about whether the U.S. writes rules that slow certain kinds of AI development, or writes rules that preserve a broad runway for industry.
Bores—an assemblymember with a master’s in computer science, a former Palantir data scientist who left for moral reasons—ran the RAISE Act in New York, forcing big AI firms to publish safety procedures. He’s campaigning on federal-level versions of those ideas, including an AI Dividend proposal that would compensate workers displaced by automation. That has Silicon Valley watching like a referee at a fight.
Leading The Future says it’s not opposed to regulation, but its pitch is pro-innovation. Public First frames the choice differently: more safeguards, more oversight. The fight is both technical and political, and it is unfolding with enormous sums on the line.
How much have super PACs spent on AI-related races?
Outside spending in NY-12 has already topped $40 million (€37,000,000). AdImpact attributes more than $26 million (€24,000,000) of that to ads. Those numbers are a preview of how AI policy will be contested in election cycles to come—both in ad buys and in the narratives that funders promote.
Outside a venture firm’s conference room: two Silicon Valley visions collide
At industry panels, you’ll hear two competing slogans about AI’s future. One emphasizes speed and market leadership; the other stresses guardrails and public safety. Those slogans now have political wallets behind them.
Leading The Future’s founders—Andreessen Horowitz, Brockman, Lonsdale and Perplexity—are betting on a lighter regulatory hand. Critics say that line risks treating policy like a racetrack where whoever builds the fastest model wins. Public First and supporters like Anthropic argue that heavier-duty safety frameworks are necessary: they’ve bankrolled campaigns and policy advocacy to push that case.
The rhetoric can get personal. Sam Altman publicly blamed aggressive rhetoric for real-world attacks, and David Sacks called Anthropic’s warnings “doomerism.” Those public feuds feed voter anxieties and campaign ads alike. This is politics by amplification—squeaky voices become megaphones.
I’ll be blunt: you can treat this as an inside-industry quarrel, or you can see it as a test about who writes the rules for technologies that affect your job, your privacy, and your safety. One side wants looser rules to accelerate investment; the other demands formal processes and safeguards before scaling widely.
At a campaign event in NY-12: local politics meets national consequence
Voters at a campaign stop will hear local retail promises but also national scripts: AI safety, jobs, and ad attacks. Bores warns that a win by megadonors pushing a softer line will create a chilling effect—candidates won’t talk about AI if big money can silence debate.
You can see the pattern already. Leading The Future has endorsed other Democrats—Representative Van Hoyle in Oregon and Representative Rob Menendez in New Jersey—while pouring resources into targeted primary fights. Their reach extends beyond New York, into contests where AI policy will become law or stay laissez-faire.
This primary is a test of political muscle: which narrative converts into votes? If tens of millions of dollars in ads can shape the question set, what subject areas will candidates avoid because the corporate wallet wins the conversation?
On your phone as results roll in: what to watch and why it matters
Polls show Bores and Micah Lasher neck-and-neck, with Jack Schlossberg trailing. Voting closes at 9 pm ET tonight. If you follow AI policy, watch who voters reward: the candidate pushing for formal accountability procedures or the candidate backed by pro-innovation money.
Think of this race like a pressure cooker and like a chessboard—both a build-up of heat and a set of strategic moves where each piece forces a reaction. The contours of today’s outcome will inform congressional hearings, committee chairs, and the tech industry’s regulatory playbook.
I follow the money and the messaging so you don’t have to sift through thousands of ad impressions. Pay attention to how campaigns answer two simple questions: who pays them, and what rules they will fight for once sworn in. Will the winners protect public safety by imposing binding processes, or will they prioritize giving companies more room to experiment?
Which outcome scares you more: a future where AI grows quickly with light oversight, or one where safety measures slow advances but try to limit harm?