AI super PAC tracker: Leading the Future, Public First and the 2026 midterm results

Two networks of political committees spent heavily in the 2026 cycle to shape how Congress treats artificial intelligence. One, Leading the Future, opposes strict regulation. The other, Public First Action, backs safeguards and has received money from Anthropic. This page logs who funds each, what they spent and how they did. We will update it through the correction loop as filings and results arrive, not publish it again.

The AI super PAC midterm results are easy to over-read, so every figure below names its source and its date.

The money: who funds what

Bellingcat, citing Federal Election Commission filings in an investigation published November 2, reports that Leading the Future (LTF) has received $125 million from Greg Brockman, his wife Anna Brockman, Andreessen Horowitz and the firm's founders. LTF had disbursed about $52 million, including $20 million each to Think Big, its Democratic-facing committee, and American Mission, its Republican-facing one. The Next Web, citing WIRED, says LTF launched in August 2025 with a roughly $100 million war chest and ended the cycle with just over $20 million.

On the other side, Bellingcat says Public First Action has received $40 million from Anthropic. Its affiliated committees received $15.4 million (Jobs and Democracy, the Democratic arm), $7.9 million (Defending Our Values, the Republican arm) and $1 million (Public First PAC).

Tech Influence Watch, a tracker run by Molly White, counted about $79 million of AI super PAC spending across 68 House and Senate seats, according to The Next Web on November 5.

The results: what happened on November 3

Leading the Future. In the New York 12th District Democratic primary in June, LTF spent over $8.1 million against Alex Bores, who lost to Micah Lasher (The Next Web). TechCrunch reports LTF spent $27.38 million in primaries overall. In the general election LTF spent about $10 million, mostly on safe seats. American Mission spent $590,428 for Aaron Flint in Montana's first district and $509,067 for Laurie Buckhout in North Carolina's first; both conceded. Two affiliated committees spent $4.8 million for Republican Darline Graham in South Carolina, who lost to Democrat Annie Andrews. Think Big backed Florida's Jared Moskowitz, who won.

Public First. The network spent about $15 million backing Bores, who lost the primary. Defending Our Values spent $1.49 million for Carlos De La Cruz in Texas's 35th and $974,908 for Rhett Marques in Alabama's second; both lost. It also spent $857,426 for Scott Singer against Moskowitz, who won. Jobs and Democracy backed two winners in Ohio and Pennsylvania, per The Next Web.

Other groups. Guardrails Alliance, a group of tech workers, spent over $1 million each against Aaron Flint and Representative Jimmy Gomez; both lost, and Gomez was beaten by Angela Gonzales-Torres, whom the group supported with $300,000 (TechCrunch).

The pattern in Fortune's tally of the closest races, as summarized by The Next Web, is that most Republicans backed by either camp lost. TechCrunch adds that it is hard to separate AI-related spending from the broader Democratic wave.

What the ads said, and did not say

Bellingcat analyzed 336 video ads across 40 candidates, using Google's ad transparency data for January 1 to October 23. Only ads for two candidates mentioned AI, and none mentioned data centers. Economic issues appeared for 29 candidates, immigration or law enforcement for 16 and Trump or MAGA for 17. Bellingcat's conclusion is that ad content reveals little about funders' AI positions, so filings are the better guide.

That fits what we saw in the Bores race, where Bellingcat says Think Big's 22 ads attacked his Anthropic funding and Palantir past rather than his AI policy.

Open questions and live disputes

• Shell company network. Bellingcat reports four newly formed limited liability companies received over $36.4 million from the LTF network, with Lantern Production Consultants LLC alone receiving over $20 million. The Campaign Legal Center filed an FEC complaint in May alleging evasion of reporting rules. The FEC has not ruled, per Bellingcat.
• Public opinion. Bellingcat cites a survey finding about three-quarters of likely voters would be less inclined to back a candidate who took AI super PAC money. Voters also rejected data centers in 40 of 41 ballot measures on election night, per The Next Web.
• 2028 plans. LTF told TechCrunch it prefers primaries and will keep spending into 2028. Bores's new nonprofit, Who Decides, aims to raise $30 million before 2028, per Fortune as cited by The Next Web.

Why it matters for policy

The central dispute is whether Congress passes a national AI framework that overrides state laws. Our earlier note on OpenAI's post-midterm policy push shows one side's agenda. Money did not decide the result, but it did make AI a campaign topic, and the next fight will be about whether being backed by AI money is a liability.

Reading the numbers with care

Totals in this field disagree because reporters count different things. Bellingcat's $125 million for Leading the Future is money received from named donors, per FEC filings; The Next Web, citing WIRED, describes a roughly $100 million war chest at launch. TechCrunch's $27.38 million primary figure and The Next Web's $8.1 million against Bores measure different slices of the same spending. We list each number with its author so a reader can follow the chain.

Two other cautions. First, a win is not proof of influence: LTF's safe-seat wins would likely have happened anyway, and The Next Web notes most of its dozens of winners were in safe seats. Second, the groups' own statements are advocacy. Public First's Brad Carson told WIRED, "Voters in both parties delivered the same verdict tonight," while Alex Bores told Politico, "Allying with the worst parts of the AI industry is just kryptonite for a campaign." Both are interested parties.

Our take

The easy story, that the safeguards camp won, is not supported by the tallies. Both camps lost races they paid for. What the record does support is narrower: undisclosed or lightly disclosed AI money is now a political cost, and the groups know it. We will log the next filing, the FEC decision on the LLC complaint and any 2028 commitments here.