In New York's 12th Congressional District, a political battle is unfolding that reveals a deeper conflict over who controls the future of artificial intelligence. Alex Bores, a Democratic candidate and state assemblyman, faces a barrage of attack ads funded by a super PAC with direct ties to the very tech companies he aims to regulate.
"He made hundreds of thousands of dollars building and selling the tech for ICE, enabling ICE and powering their deportations while making bank. ICE is powered by Bores's tech."
These ads target Bores's past work at Palantir, but the funding behind them tells a more revealing story. The super PAC Leading the Future—and its affiliate Think Big—receives substantial contributions from OpenAI co-founders, venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, and notably, Palantir itself.
Why would Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale fund attacks criticizing a candidate for working at Palantir? The answer lies in Bores's legislative record. As a New York State Assembly member, he co-authored and helped pass the RAISE Act, one of the first significant pieces of AI regulation in any major state. Leading the Future appears dedicated to defeating any candidate who might impose regulations on the tech industry, particularly AI, in ways these funders oppose.
This conflict highlights a fundamental tension in American democracy. OpenAI's Sam Altman recently wrote, "It is important that the Democratic process remains more powerful than companies." Yet his co-founder, Greg Brockman, is a major donor to the same super PAC working to ensure corporate interests dominate that process by flooding elections with enough money to crush regulatory efforts.
Bores has proven an effective legislator during his three years in the New York State Assembly, passing 30 bills and earning recognition from the Center for Effective Lawmaking as one of the most effective freshman legislators. His AI proposals include innovative concepts like an AI dividend, reflecting a balanced approach that acknowledges both AI's risks and potential benefits.
What makes this situation particularly telling is that Bores isn't an anti-AI candidate. He understands the technology well and seeks thoughtful regulation rather than outright opposition. This suggests Leading the Future's true goal isn't just to defeat one candidate but to establish a precedent where any attempt to legislate AI faces overwhelming financial opposition.
If democratic governance is to have meaning in the age of artificial intelligence, ideas must ultimately speak louder than money. The outcome of this congressional race may signal whether the public interest or corporate funding will shape how transformative technologies are governed.