$27.8M in corporate AI spending floods New York House primary as rival super PACs back same candidate

Corporate AI spending reaches unprecedented scale in local Democratic primary

Nearly $28 million in super PAC money flowed into New York’s 12th Congressional District primary as rival artificial intelligence interests battled over a single House seat. According to The Verge, the spending total reached $27.83 million, with multiple corporate-backed groups channeling resources toward state assemblyman Alex Bores, who co-sponsored the first successfully enacted AI safety legislation in the country. The primary election took place on June 23, 2026, in Manhattan.

Anthropic and Ripple cofounder back same candidate through separate PACs

The money came from PACs with distinct corporate origins, yet converged on Bores’ candidacy. Anthropic-connected groups funded significant portions: Dream NYC received an initial large donation from an Anthropic employee, while the Jobs and Democracy super PAC is directly supported by Public First Action, a nonprofit advocacy organization that received a $20 million donation from Anthropic itself, according to The Verge. Separately, Ripple cofounder Chris Larsen created the You Can Push Back super PAC, which Politico suggested was connected to coordinated digital messaging on behalf of Bores, the publication reported to The Verge.

Astroturfing allegations and coordinated digital campaigns

The spending coincided with verified inauthentic activity. Jack Schlossberg, a Kennedy family member also running for the NY-12 seat, alleged on X that coordinated bot networks were promoting Bores. According to The Verge, Politico New York confirmed at least eight newly created accounts on TikTok and Instagram posting pro-Bores content, with evidence suggesting connections to organized messaging efforts. You Can Push Back declined to comment on these findings when contacted by Politico.

The paradox: AI-backed candidate disavows AI-centric campaign

Despite the corporate focus on AI policy, Bores distanced himself from that framing. According to The Verge, Bores and his campaign “repeatedly emphasized” that AI safety was not the centerpiece of his platform, even as the rival super PACs positioned it as the race’s defining issue. This created a collision between corporate interests and electoral messaging: the safety-minded groups funding him were advancing the very AI-policy narrative Bores sought to avoid.

Why This Matters

For future House candidates navigating AI regulation, this precedent signals that primary opposition can now be funded at venture-capital scale. A candidate supporting AI safety faces organized, well-capitalized opposition, while a candidate opposing industry-friendly regulation attracts simultaneous backing from multiple AI-founded entities—both scenarios carry implicit political costs. For Congress members writing AI legislation after 2026, the $27.8 million NY-12 spend demonstrates that AI companies view regulatory positioning as worth corporate-scale investment in electoral outcomes, not just lobbying budgets. The specific tension—safety-focused backers financing a candidate who publicly downplayed AI safety—raises questions about whether corporate-funded candidates can maintain independence from their funders’ stated priorities once elected.