from Hacker News

Silicon Valley is pouring millions into pro-AI PACs to sway midterms

by sailfast on 8/26/25, 3:25 PM with 121 comments

  • by chronotis on 8/26/25, 4:21 PM

    Former (failed) candidate here, state legislative race in a smaller state that's not generally described as competitive. Money = time. When large donors can deploy large amounts of cash, it relieves you of the need to spend tons of time raising money and you can instead spend that time on other things of greater ROI or that can scale your outreach to a larger audience.

  • by mkw5053 on 8/26/25, 3:55 PM

    Notable that 'Leading the Future' explicitly models itself on Fairshake, which spent $130 million in 2024 and achieved 48 of 51 endorsed candidates winning. At that success rate, $100 million in AI PAC spending could determine 30-40 House seats' positions on AI regulation. For context, the EU's AI Act passed with zero industry PAC spending, while China's AI regulations proceeded without Western-style lobbying.

  • by pera on 8/26/25, 4:07 PM

    There's simply too much money involved, investors and corporations will do literally everything they can to keep this going...

  • by dante9999 on 8/26/25, 5:41 PM

    US politics is broken, but most AI regulations are poorly designed. Look at EU AI policy. It is not addressing any real problems and is mostly just additional paperwork.

  • by xyst on 8/26/25, 5:03 PM

    Silicon Valley is just like the oil and gas industry. This is quite awful.

    We need to reverse Citizens United v FEC decision.

  • by bhouston on 8/26/25, 4:05 PM

    The degree to which US politics can be bought amazes me as a Canadian. It does seem that $$$ makes right in the US.

    It isn’t so much the will of the people but the will of the rich and powerful.

    For example, in the last US election there was billions spent in 2024 by the political parties, and outside groups:

    Parties themselves: https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race

    Outside groups: https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/by_group

  • by throwawaybob420 on 8/26/25, 4:10 PM

    [flagged]

  • by icandoit on 8/26/25, 4:22 PM

    AI would never be able to hijack the political process. AI Super-PACs dominating elections would be a clear milestone in the progression of the "gradual disempowerment" theory of loss of human control.

    How could a person dedicated to their denial of the possibility of gradual disempowerment spin this as "good actually?" Am I reduced to "technological improvement is always good"? Or there some logically smaller step I can take?