AI super PAC spending tracker: Leading the Future and Public First Action in the 2026 midterms

AI super PACs spent tens of millions of dollars on the 2026 midterms, and the results were mixed for both camps. This tracker follows the two main networks, Leading the Future on the pro-industry side and Public First Action on the pro-regulation side, with each figure dated and attributed. Totals differ by who counts and when, so read the source beside every number.

How to read these numbers

No single tally is authoritative. The New York Times counted $55.7 million spent by AI-aligned groups on 2026 races in an analysis published October 2, 2026. The San Francisco Standard, reporting on October 31 from Federal Election Commission filings, put total cycle spending by Leading the Future at about $42 million, a narrower figure than the Times'. TechCrunch's November 4 results piece uses yet another cut. The differences come from what is included: independent expenditures only, or also affiliated nonprofits, polling and ads.

We update this page through corrections when a filing or a major report changes a figure. The date next to each entry is the date of the source, not the date of the spending.

The two networks

Leading the Future is the pro-industry super PAC network, described by TechCrunch as backed by OpenAI president Greg Brockman and Andreessen Horowitz. The New York Times calls it OpenAI-aligned. Its Republican arm is American Mission and its Democratic arm is Think Big. Per the San Francisco Standard (October 31, 2026):

• It launched in August 2025 with promises of $100 million from backers including Marc Andreessen and Joe Lonsdale.
• Brockman gave $25 million last year, then pulled out of a second planned $25 million donation in June, calling the PAC "a distraction."
• Think Big and American Mission spent $4.1 million in October despite nearly $24 million in cash on hand.
• Spending was about $26 million in primaries and under $10 million in the general election, with total cycle spending of about $42 million.

TechCrunch (November 4, 2026) says Leading the Future spent $27.38 million in primaries, including about $8 million opposing Alex Bores, who lost his June congressional bid. The group says it plans to keep spending in 2028. Its spokesperson, Jesse Hunt, told the San Francisco Standard the group is "committed to a multi-cycle effort."

Public First Action is the pro-regulation network, described by both outlets as funded largely by Anthropic. The San Francisco Standard says it has spent about $28 million backing pro-regulation candidates this cycle and about $30 million since July on polling and educational ads through a 501(c)(4) arm, including about $1.1 million in October. A spokesperson, Anthony Rivera-Rodriguez, told the Times: "We reject any suggestion that we have anything in common with Leading the Future, a group that exists to gut every serious attempt to regulate artificial intelligence."

A third group, Guardrails Alliance, also backs regulation. TechCrunch reports it spent more than $1 million each against Jimmy Gomez in California and Aaron Flint in Montana, and both lost. Its spokesperson Charlie Blaettler said: "Our goal is to make AI money politically toxic."

Race results

This table summarizes outcomes reported by TechCrunch on November 4, 2026, unless noted.

• NY-12, Alex Bores. Leading the Future spent about $8 million against him. Public First Action spent about $12 million supporting him (San Francisco Standard). He lost his June bid.
• South Carolina Senate, Darline Graham. American Mission and Building the Future co-spent $4.8 million backing her. She lost.
• Montana House, Aaron Flint. American Mission spent more than $500,000 supporting him, and Guardrails Alliance more than $1 million opposing him. He lost.
• North Carolina House, Laurie Buckhout. American Mission spent more than $500,000 supporting her. She lost.
• Florida, Jared Moskowitz. Think Big backed him. He won reelection.
• California House, Jimmy Gomez. Guardrails Alliance spent more than $1 million against him and $300,000 for Angela Gonzales-Torres, who defeated him.
• California state Senate, Scott Wiener. Public First's affiliated PAC contributed $3 million to a PAC supporting him. TechCrunch said he was leading at publication.
• Valerie Foushee. The Times reports the Anthropic-aligned Jobs and Democracy PAC spent $1.6 million supporting her. She won by less than one percentage point.

TechCrunch notes that the Democratic wave makes it hard to isolate the effect of AI spending.

What the money bought, and what it avoided

The Times reviewed 95 unique ads from four AI super PACs. None mentioned data centers, and only seven mentioned AI or an AI company directly. The Times also found that $52.6 million of the $55.7 million went to safe seats, which limits the claim that this money changed outcomes.

The San Francisco Standard reported that most of Leading the Future's October money went to safe incumbents, not battlegrounds, and that proposed data center moratoriums have appeared in nearly 500 communities in the last year. Our data center backlash tracker follows those local fights.

Candidates have noticed the spending. Utah state senator Nate Blouin called it "so cynical," and Nida Allam said: "No one is spending that amount of money unless they're getting something in return," per the Times.

Scoreboard

On the totals we can attribute: Leading the Future about $42 million (San Francisco Standard, October 31) and Public First Action about $28 million in candidate support plus about $30 million in the 501(c)(4) arm since July. Treat any single combined figure with caution. The race tallies show each side winning some and losing some, and no pattern clean enough to credit the money.

Where this goes next

OpenAI's chief global affairs officer, Chris Lehane, has already moved to 2028. We covered his essay in our report on the five tests he set for candidates.

What we will add here: the next FEC quarterly filings, any change in Leading the Future's cash position, and new donors. Anthropic's own contributions to Public First Action are a separate dated item we will list once we have opened the primary filing; we do not repeat reported totals for it here.

Our position: treat super PAC dollars as a measure of what each side fears, not of what voters want. In the most expensive named race, NY-12, the side that spent more lost, and both sides have said they will spend again in 2028.