A political contest surrounding New York state lawmaker Alex Bores and his campaign for a congressional seat has developed into a direct confrontation between two major camps in the AI industry. OpenAI and Anthropic, through related political action committees and supporting networks, are backing candidates with opposing positions and committing funding at levels ranging from several million dollars to more than ten million dollars.
The RAISE Act at the Center of the Dispute
The dispute is tied closely to the New York state RAISE Act previously advanced by Alex Bores. The bill has been described as one of the strictest attempts at AI safety regulation in the United States. It would require AI companies to report potential “catastrophic risks,” a provision that has become the core point of contention in the current election fight.
A group called “Leading the Future,” backed by OpenAI-related investors and Silicon Valley capital, has spent more than $7.6 million on advertising in an effort to prevent Alex Bores from being elected. On the other side, political networks connected to Anthropic and its investors have spent more than $10 million supporting his campaign. The size of the spending has turned the race into a visible arena for competing approaches to AI governance.
Self-Regulation Versus Stronger Government Oversight
The case has moved the AI regulation debate from policy discussion into direct political conflict. The central disagreement is whether AI should be governed mainly through corporate self-regulation or through stronger government oversight. Both supporting and opposing camps have accused the other side of representing corporate interests rather than public regulatory demands.
As a result, the district election is being viewed as a “proxy war” between two governance paths for the AI industry. One side is associated with a self-regulatory approach, while the other supports stronger government constraints, including requirements around reporting safety risks. Analysts cited in the source said the episode shows that competition in the AI sector has expanded beyond technology and products into politics and regulatory structures, making it a key case at the intersection of technology and policy. (Fortune)