AI super PAC’s strategy fails to replicate crypto’s election success
Leading the Future raised Fairshake-level money but has not built Fairshake-level fear on Capitol Hill
The AI industry studied crypto’s political playbook closely. It raised the money, built the super PAC network, and picked its races.
What it has not managed to copy is the result. Leading the Future, the AI-focused super PAC network launched in 2025, has spent heavily through the 2026 cycle. Yet it still lacks the kind of signature win that made crypto’s Fairshake a name every lawmaker learned to respect.
Big money, muted message
The financial firepower is not the problem. Leading the Future started with a fund of over $100 million, a figure that later climbed toward approximately $140 million.
That puts it roughly level with Fairshake’s 2024 cycle total of approximately $131 million.
The network counts OpenAI president Greg Brockman and venture capitalists from Andreessen Horowitz among its supporters.
The goal was simple enough. Back candidates who favor a lighter touch on AI regulation, and make life harder for those pushing strict rules.
By late September 2026, Leading the Future and its affiliate groups had spent approximately $55.7 million. Most of it went into primary elections, and much of it favored Democrats running in safe seats.
Those races delivered wins. The network posted roughly 90% success rates in less competitive districts.
The NY-12 problem
The race that defined the cycle for AI money was the June 2026 primary in New York’s 12th congressional district.
AI, tech, and the markets they move—in one daily briefing.
Daily. Free. Join 34,000+ readers across crypto, finance, and policy.
Spending tied to Leading the Future exceeded $8 million in that contest. Counter-spending topped $18 million.
New York Assemblymember Alex Bores lost by roughly 4 points to Micah Lasher.
The outcome did little to establish the AI lobby as a force candidates must fear. Instead, it put the industry’s internal divisions on public display.
That split matters. The AI sector is not a unified bloc. A pro-innovation faction and a pro-safety faction are effectively fighting over the same policy terrain, and both have deep pockets.
The rivalry has also pushed Leading the Future toward a more cautious approach on negative campaigning, which removes one of the sharpest tools in the super PAC kit.
How crypto did it differently
Fairshake has continued spending hard through the 2026 midterms, reporting over $120 million in cash on hand.
It has also made initial commitments of $6 million or more to candidates who support the Clarity Act, the market structure legislation the crypto industry has prioritized.
That is the contrast in a nutshell. Crypto tied its spending to a specific bill and a specific set of votes. AI money, by comparison, has been spread across safe seats without a comparable rallying point.
Combined spending from crypto and AI super PACs exceeded $127 million across more than 100 primary contests, with approximately 90% of supported candidates advancing.
What this means for AI policy and its backers
The larger risk is the industry’s internal fight. As long as pro-innovation and pro-safety camps keep spending against each other, neither side can credibly threaten lawmakers with a unified response. Candidates who back stricter AI rules can count on friendly money showing up from within the industry itself.
Concerns about whether the funding can be sustained, and whether the strategy actually works, are already rising as the cycle heads into the midterms.