Leading the Future, the AI super PAC touted as a “death star” (opens in new tab) for anti-AI candidates, appears to be flickering out.
Facing significant public backlash on AI and data centers, the PAC — which launched with promises of $100 million from tech industry leaders including venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale — has significantly curtailed its spending in the final stretch of the midterms. It is also hemorrhaging donors and spending far less than other leading tech industry PACs.
“They’re trying to hide right now,” said a prominent Democratic bundler from Silicon Valley, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations among donors. “There’s so much momentum against data centers. People are concerned about AI and jobs.”
October is usually a month when PACs shell out for last-minute appeals to voters. But Leading the Future spent just $4.1 million through its affiliated PACs, Think Big and American Mission, despite having nearly $24 million in cash on hand, according to FEC filings. That money went largely to safe incumbents, rather than to battleground races in Arizona, North Carolina, and Montana, where its network spent in the primaries. In total, the network has spent less than $10 million in the general, compared to the roughly $26 million it dropped in the primaries.
Jesse Hunt, a spokesperson for Leading the Future, downplayed the shift, arguing the group has a long-term strategy to cultivate Capitol Hill allies. “We are committed to a multi-cycle effort that ensures lawmakers who understand the stakes and are prepared to lead have a seat at the table during this critical moment,” he said.
The shift comes as a surprise to many tech industry observers who had expected, or feared, the PAC would spend heavily to target lawmakers who support AI-safety regulations. When Leading the Future launched in August 2025, promising to spend big against candidates who would “handcuff” the AI industry with stringent regulations, the most common comparison was to Fairshake, the mammoth crypto industry PAC that struck fear in the heart of anti-crypto candidates in 2024.
But while Fairshake spent nearly $196 million in that cycle — and more than $150 million so far this cycle — Leading the Future’s affiliated PACs have spent just $42 million. The PAC network has also spent less this cycle than Elon Musk’s self-funded America PAC (about $172 million), the pro-Israel AIPAC (more than $100 million), and even the sports betting industry’s Win for America PAC (about $80 million). And it will have little effect on which party winds up with control of Congress, having focused its donations on candidates in largely uncompetitive races.
Poll after poll shows that many Americans are increasingly wary of AI, including the potential for job losses, as well as the energy demands of data centers needed to support the industry. In the last year, proposed moratoriums on data center projects have popped up in nearly 500 communities across the country.
The industry has also been at war with itself. A group called Public First Action, funded largely by AI company Anthropic, has spent about $28 million backing pro-regulation candidates this cycle. The two groups dramatically faced off in New York’s District 12 primary, where Leading the Future spent about $8 million against Alex Bores, a champion of AI safety running for the House, and Public First Action spent $12 million supporting him. Bores lost the race, but the battle spurred national headlines and made the state lawmaker into a media darling.
“[AI PAC leaders] really came out with all the bravado of folks that knew exactly what they were doing. They were going to take a public scalp,” said Sacha Haworth, director of the Tech Oversight Project, an advocacy group critical of the industry. “But they activated a whole wave of backlash across the country that cuts across demographics and political partisanship.”
Public First Action, the Anthropic-backed pro-regulation PAC, also slowed its spending this month, shelling out about $1.1 million. That money went to slightly more competitive races, including nearly $600,000 toward AI regulation proponent Manny Rutinel’s race for Congress in Colorado. A spokesperson said the group had spent $30 million since July on polling and “educational” ads through its nonprofit, 501(c)(4) arm, which does not have to disclose spending to the FEC.
Just being associated with AI-aligned PACs has become a liability for some candidates, as anti-AI advocacy groups aggressively target Democrats and Republicans who were supported by the industry in primary races. Micah Lasher, the New York state assemblymember who defeated Bores in the primary race for a Manhattan seat, has rejected support (opens in new tab) from the industry and called for a national moratorium on data center construction.
In San Francisco’s congressional race to succeed Rep. Nancy Pelosi, AI spending has become a focal point. State Sen. Scott Wiener, the frontrunner who wrote one of the first AI-safety laws in the country, has faced repeated attacks after Public First Action contributed $3.5 million to an outside PAC supporting him. Supervisor Connie Chan, Pelosi’s favored successor, accuses Wiener of being too chummy with the industry.
“Scott Wiener, he’s bankrolled by Big Tech and AI corporations,” states one of Chan’s final TV spots. “Over $3 million in TV ads… He supports massive data centers.”
Wiener has tried to mitigate those attacks by touting his record on AI legislation, including authoring California’s SB53, the first state law directly targeting frontier AI models. “I did battle with big tech for two years,” Wiener told The Standard.
Los Angeles Rep. Jimmy Gomez has been a top target of anti-AI protesters after he was endorsed by Leading the Future. The PAC hasn’t spent in the race, though Gomez has refused to disavow the PAC as some advocates demanded. Meanwhile, the Guardrails Alliance, a PAC created to draw attention to AI industry spending in politics, has spent more than $1 million against him, including ads tying him to “AI billionaires” like OpenAI President Greg Brockman.
Brockman himself has been embroiled in the backlash to Leading the Future, which upset some staff at OpenAI with its strong anti-regulatory stance. The executive, who donated $25 million to the PAC last year, pulled out of a second planned $25 million donation in June, saying it had become “a distraction.” Venture capitalist Ron Conway, one of Leading the Future’s first backers, also regrets his $500,000 contribution to the PAC network, according to an adviser familiar with his thinking.
Shaunna Thomas, the director of the Guardrails Alliance, said groups like hers have been successful in making donations from AI-affiliated groups toxic for candidates. Going forward, she said she hopes to protect pro-regulation lawmakers from industry-sponsored attack ads, and to make AI donations an equally salient issue in the 2028 presidential race.
“People are really looking for candidates to tell them what side they’re on, and you’re either on the side of big tech and big AI or you’re on ours,” she said. “In that environment, Leading the Future is at a real disadvantage.”