支持和反对AI行业的政治团体花费数百万美元试图影响星期二的中期选举，这一开支产生了好坏参半的结果，一些得到最多支持的候选人失去了他们的种族。
在行业方面，两个以AI为重点的政治行动委员会(PACs)，融资为了影响选举花费了资金——美国使命和建设未来——共同花费480万美元支持南卡罗来纳州参议院候选人达琳·格雷厄姆，后者输了。 美国使命(American Mission)是领导未来(LTF)的共和党支出分支，是一个更广泛的政治团体，由OpenAI总统格雷格·布洛克曼和VC公司安德烈森·霍罗维茨(Andreessen Horowitz)支持。
美国使团还花费了50多万美元支持蒙大拿州的共和党众议院候选人亚伦·弗林特和北卡罗莱纳州的劳里·巴克豪特，两人均落败。 LTF的民主党支出臂膀“大智商”拥有更好的运气，支持赢得连任的佛罗里达州共和党(Jared Moskowitz).
主张加强大赦国际保障的团体也取得了好坏参半的结果。 以Anthropic为后盾的Public First支持了几名共和党人，他们通过所属的PAC输了球，但支持民主党候选人取得了更大的成功。 它还向一个支持加州州森的PAC捐助了300万美元。 Scott Wiener在出版时正在领跑他的比赛。
与此同时，Guardrails Alliance(Guardrails Alliance)这个试图从AI公司拿钱的团体却花费了100多万美元来对抗两个落选的候选人：加州的Jimmy Gomez和蒙大拿的Aaron Flint。 它还花费30万美元支持击败戈麦斯的安吉拉·冈萨雷斯-托雷斯。
与AI有关的支出与席卷星期二选举的更广泛的民主浪潮的影响难以区分。 据报道，埃隆·穆斯克在中期期中向支持共和党的共和党人注资了5亿美元，他也看到了他的许多候选人败选。 事实上，LTF还支持一些它认为可能获胜的候选人，只是让他们输给德意志党。
大选并非主要焦点，团体在选举日前告诉TechCrunch，认为初选(选择每个政党提名的参赛者)是对其资金的一种更有效的使用，因为在那里花钱可以建立名字识别
LTF在初选中花费了2,738万美元，其中仅800万美元用于对手纽约国会议员亚历克斯·博雷斯(Alex Bores)，后者在6月就输掉了对国会的竞标。 LTF在决定是否值得跳入大选赛时，评估赛事的竞争性，它是否认为支出可以有所作为，以及它是否应该为今后的选举保持干粉。
守护者联盟的政治总监查理·布莱特勒(Charlie Blaettler)对LTF为何在大选中花费相对较少有不同的理论。
“他们不希望自己的钱在这些选举中成为问题。” 他指出密歇根州参议院初选中，一个名为AIPAC的亲以色列游说团体花费了近3000万美元支持民主党候选人海利·史蒂文斯反对阿卜杜勒·赛义德。 史蒂文斯承认了El-Sayed的初选，他继续赢得参议院席位。
Blaettler 称。 “我们知道，人们讨厌大赦国际的亿万富翁。 他们讨厌那些经营这些公司的人他们对科技行业的政治开支和游说非常不信任和厌恶。 如果在竞争中花钱，他们就会成为候选人的巨大负担。”
AI PACs之间主要的斗争，无论是亲产业还是亲监管，是国会是否应该建立一个凌驾于州法律之上的国家AI框架，还是各州会保持自己强制实施保障措施的能力。
双方似乎都准备退缩 LTF支持单一的国家AI框架，它告诉TechCrunch它计划在2028年的选举中保持开支，而Guardrails Alliance 称则希望保持对立候选人在AI产业的支持下。
Blaettler 称指出LTF的广告很少触及AI
Blaettler 称。
本文由 AI图鉴自动抓取并翻译，版权归原作者所有；如需查看原文请点下方链接。
Political groups both supporting and opposing the AI industry spent millions of dollars trying to influence Tuesday’s midterm elections and shape the future of AI regulation. That spending produced mixed results, with some of the most heavily backed candidates losing their races.
On the industry side, two AI-focused political action committees (PACs) that raised and spent money to influence the elections — American Mission and Building the Future — collectively spent $4.8 million to back South Carolina Senate candidate Darline Graham, who lost. American Mission is the Republican spending arm of Leading the Future (LTF), a broader political group backed by OpenAI president Greg Brockman and the VC firm Andreessen Horowitz.
American Mission also spent more than $500,000 apiece supporting Republican House candidates Aaron Flint in Montana and Laurie Buckhout in North Carolina, both of whom lost. LTF’s Democratic spending arm, Think Big, had better luck backing Florida Rep. Jared Moskowitz, who won reelection.
Groups advocating for stronger AI safeguards also saw mixed results. Public First, which is backed by Anthropic, supported several Republicans who lost through its affiliated PAC but had more success backing Democratic candidates. It also contributed $3 million to a PAC supporting California state Sen. Scott Wiener, who was leading his race at the time of publication.
Meanwhile, Guardrails Alliance, a group that has sought to make taking money from AI companies a political liability, spent more than $1 million apiece opposing two candidates who lost: California Rep. Jimmy Gomez and Montana’s Aaron Flint. It also spent $300,000 supporting Angela Gonzales-Torres, who defeated Gomez.
It’s difficult to separate the impact of AI-related spending from the broader Democratic wave that swept Tuesday’s elections. Elon Musk, who reportedly poured half a billion dollars into supporting Republicans in the midterms, also saw many of his candidates lose. Indeed, LTF also backed some candidates it believed were likely to win, only to see them lose to the Dems.
For LTF, though, the general election wasn’t the main focus. The group told TechCrunch ahead of Election Day that it thinks primaries (the contests that choose each party’s nominee) are a more effective use of its money, because spending there can build name recognition and help candidates set up AI policy agendas.
LTF spent $27.38 million in the primaries, including $8 million alone on opposing New York Assembly member Alex Bores, who lost his bid for Congress back in June. When deciding whether it’s worth jumping into a general election race, LTF assesses how competitive the race is, whether it thinks spending could make a difference, and whether it should keep its powder dry for future elections.
Charlie Blaettler, political director of Guardrails Alliance, had a different theory for why LTF spent comparatively little in the general election.
“They don’t want their money to become an issue in these elections,” Blaettler said. He pointed to the Michigan Senate primary election, in which a pro-Israel lobbying group called AIPAC spent close to $30 million backing Democratic candidate Haley Stevens against Abdul El-Sayed. Stevens conceded the primary to El-Sayed, who went on to win the Senate seat.
“AIPAC became the story in that race,” Blaettler said. “We know people hate AI billionaires. They hate the people running these companies. They’re very distrustful and disgusted by the political spending and lobbying that the tech industry does. If they spend in a competitive race, they would just become an enormous liability for their candidates.”
The main fight among AI PACs, whether they are pro-industry or pro-regulation, is whether Congress should establish a national AI framework that override state laws, or whether states will maintain their own ability to impose safeguards.
Neither side seems poised to back down. LTF, which favors a single national AI framework, told TechCrunch it plans to keep spending in the 2028 elections, while Guardrails Allliance says it wants to keep opposing candidates backed by the AI industry.
Blaettler said that while LTF’s ads rarely touch on AI, instead focusing on popular issues for each candidate, Guardrail Alliance’s ads are specifically about who is taking money from the AI industry.
“Our goal is to make AI money politically toxic,” Blaettler said.
Auto-fetched and translated by AI Atlas. All rights belong to the original author.