AI super PACs spent $79 million — and lost the 2026 midterms

The AI money machine that couldn't buy a win

The 2026 midterms were the first election cycle in which AI industry political spending reached nine figures. Two main networks dominated the spending: Leading the Future (LTF), backed by Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI president Greg Brockman, which favors light regulation and a single national AI standard, and Public First, backed by Anthropic, which pushes for stronger safety safeguards.

LTF raised more than $100 million after its creation in August 2025, according to TIME. Ben Horowitz and Marc Andreessen each gave $25 million, and Greg Brockman and his wife Anna gave $25 million, per FEC filings cited by Fortune. The network spent $27.38 million on primary races alone, including $8 million opposing New York Assemblymember Alex Bores, who lost his June congressional bid.

Bores’ race became the most expensive House primary of the cycle, with more than $40 million in outside money pouring in, Fortune reported. Public First spent roughly $15 million to back Bores; LTF spent $8.1 million against him.

The spending was not limited to the organized PACs. Elon Musk, the world's biggest individual political donor this cycle, spent $446 million supporting Republican candidates, according to TIME. His $168 million effort to support Ken Paxton in the Texas Senate race failed when Paxton lost to Democrat James Talarico. Musk's broader half-billion-dollar Republican push also largely failed as Democrats swept both chambers.

The general election: money spent, candidates lost

When the general election arrived, LTF largely stayed on the sidelines. As of October 26, the network had spent only $7.4 million on general-election races despite having $34 million in cash on hand across its network, according to FEC data analyzed by The Intercept and cited by Fortune.

The biggest bet was on Darline Graham, the Republican Senate candidate in South Carolina. American Mission (LTF’s Republican arm) and Building the Future, a pro-data-center super PAC, collectively spent $4,801,981 supporting Graham. Her opponent, Democrat Annie Andrews, won 51.1 percent to 46.7 percent, branding Graham “Data Center Darline” in ads that tied her to AI industry donations.

Other LTF-backed candidates fared similarly. Aaron Flint in Montana’s 1st District lost after American Mission spent $590,428 supporting him. Laurie Buckhout in North Carolina’s 1st District lost after $509,067 in American Mission spending. Texas’ Jace Yarbrough, backed with $129,367, was trailing at publication time.

The pro-safety side also had mixed results

Public First’s network, which pushes for stronger AI safeguards, saw some of its candidates win. In Ohio’s 7th District, Brian Poindexter won with $570,204 from Jobs and Democracy (Public First’s Democratic arm). In Florida’s 25th, Republican Scott Singer lost despite $857,426 from Defending Our Values (Public First’s Republican arm).

The Guardrails Alliance, a group that aims to make taking money from AI companies a political liability, spent more than $1 million each opposing California Rep. Jimmy Gomez and Montana’s Aaron Flint. Both lost. It also spent $300,000 supporting Angela Gonzales-Torres, who defeated Gomez.

Guardrails Alliance political director Charlie Blaettler told TechCrunch the group’s strategy is deliberate: “We know people hate AI billionaires. They hate the people running these companies. They’re very distrustful and disgusted by the political spending and lobbying that the tech industry does.” Blaettler added, “Our goal is to make AI money politically toxic.”

Voters punished AI-backed candidates

Three in four likely voters told a survey cited by TIME that they were less likely to vote for a candidate who accepted donations from AI industry super PACs. That distrust appears to have translated into concrete electoral damage: Democrats used AI money as a campaign weapon in multiple races, with Andrews’ “Data Center Darline” attack being the most effective example.

An NBC News exit poll reported that 56 percent of voters said AI and data centers were a crucial or major factor in their vote. Voter opposition to data center expansion helped shape key races nationwide, and multiple data center moratoriums and zoning restrictions passed alongside the Democratic wave.

Blaettler told TechCrunch that LTF’s decision to keep powder dry in the general election may have been strategic: “They don’t want their money to become an issue in these elections.” He pointed to AIPAC’s experience in Michigan, where $30 million in spending became the story of the race.

The survey data reinforces the political risk. A poll cited by TIME found that 56 percent of voters said AI and data centers were a crucial or major factor in their vote. The same TIME analysis reported that voters across the political spectrum expressed skepticism about AI industry motives, with Republican voters in data-center-heavy districts joining Democrats in opposing unchecked expansion.

What the loss means for the AI industry’s political strategy

The midterm results suggest that direct political spending may be a net negative for AI companies. The industry’s biggest backers spent heavily and lost, and their money was used against them by opponents who successfully painted AI-backed candidates as bought by billionaires.

LTF told TechCrunch it plans to keep spending in the 2028 elections, but its primary-focused strategy suggests the network sees better returns in shaping candidate selection early rather than buying general-election outcomes. Bores, whose primary loss kicked off the AI spending war, has already launched a new nonprofit called Who Decides that aims to raise $30 million before 2028.

The results also carry implications for data center policy. With Democrats controlling Congress, federal data center regulation is now on the table, and AI companies that spent heavily to influence the outcome have little to show for it. OpenAI, which had previewed a post-midterm policy blitz, appears to have anticipated this dynamic and shifted to a community-engagement strategy before the results were even final.

Why AI money stayed out of the general election

Leading the Future's decision to keep $34 million in cash on hand rather than spend it on general-election races was deliberate, Charlie Blaettler of Guardrails Alliance told TechCrunch. "They don't want their money to become an issue in these elections," he said, pointing to AIPAC's experience in Michigan, where $30 million in spending became the dominant narrative of the Democratic Senate primary.

LTF told TechCrunch ahead of Election Day that it considers primaries a more effective use of its money. Spending early can build name recognition and help candidates set AI policy agendas before the general election, when party loyalty and the national mood overwhelm local spending. The network spent $27.38 million on primaries, including the $8 million against Bores that made the New York race the most expensive House primary in history.

The strategy has some logic: AI policy is still being shaped, and candidates who enter Congress with AI-friendly positions are more valuable than those who are simply bought late in a race. But the midterm results suggest the strategy may not scale. The industry's biggest general-election bet failed spectacularly, and even candidates who won may be reluctant to advertise their AI industry ties.