In recent weeks Democratic activists and candidates have rapidly organized new efforts aimed at countering industry influence over artificial intelligence policy. Several PACs and coalitions have formed since the last edition of this newsletter.
Among them is Tomorrow Together, a PAC started by veterans of the Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris campaigns to make the party "the one that wins on AI." Who Decides, launched by New York state legislator Alex Bores after his unsuccessful House run, has also entered the field; that project was drawn into disputes involving AI industry PACs.
A newly public initiative is the Stop Bleeding the Future pledge, developed by a range of progressive groups and promoted by the coalition QuitGPT, which began circulating the pledge in May. Signers commit to "refuse all money from" the most active AI industry PAC and to "condemn its efforts to stop commonsense AI laws." Early signatories include Rep. Greg Casar (D‑Texas), who has warned for months that the party needs AI policies not written by companies.
Michael Baick, one of QuitGPT’s organizers, said the coalition wants to make the industry PACs "irrelevant and toxic," so elected officials or staffers who receive outreach from those groups will recoil from engaging with them.
Why the escalation now?
Political anxiety about AI has moved from the fringes into mainstream debate over the past year. After voter anger over data‑center construction in Virginia, AI concerns became a central political issue. At the Pro‑Human Assembly — where Steve Bannon and Sen. Bernie Sanders were featured speakers — programing focused on the risks of AI and the need for government‑built "guardrails."
Alex Bores told the author he believes singling out the leading industry PAC is insufficient because the sector will try to route money elsewhere. Observers also debate the role of Effective Altruism and other funding sources in driving apocalyptic or "doomer" narratives that shape public sentiment.
For many Democrats the calculation is straightforward: they face an unpopular president, a less popular industry, and a narrative about wealthy job‑destroyers using political access to put voters at risk. Sanders urged politicians to stop letting hundreds of millions flow into super PACs if they believe in democratic accountability.
Lessons from the crypto fight shaping AI strategy
The parallels with the crypto battle are explicit. Senate Democrats on Tuesday defeated the Clarity Act — the crypto industry's top priority for two years — without apparent fear of the political fallout. The crypto sector spent more than $130 million on the 2024 elections to support friendly candidates from both parties, yet the bill still failed.
Some Democrats, including Sen. Ruben Gallego (D‑Ariz.) and Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D‑Mich.), had accepted PAC support under the expectation of collaboration if they won. But the revelation that the president and his family had made more than $1 billion from crypto deals complicated the calculus: how could Democrats defend having enriched the president on behalf of an industry that had financed campaigns? Gallego argued that Republicans cared more about ensuring the president continued to profit than about enacting regulation.
Campaign strategists say the AI industry risks a similar backlash if it attempts to repeat the crypto playbook. Sam Silverman, a Democratic strategist advising candidates on AI messaging, warned that voters are unlikely to be receptive if prominent industry figures donate large sums when AI becomes a defining election topic.
Republican divisions over approach
On the right, attitudes toward AI and data centers are more mixed than the party's earlier positions on crypto. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who lost to Trump in the 2024 primary, was an early skeptic of data‑center projects and has cautioned Republicans against being reflexively pro‑AI. His argument is that pro‑consumer, locally sensitive approaches to data‑center construction and an "AI bill of rights" would win broad majorities.
A poll provided to Axios recommended Republican candidates avoid easily quotable pro‑data‑center lines on camera while endorsing consumer‑friendly regulations for construction — advice that has persisted since the spring when the president began securing voluntary pledges from tech firms to help pay for power use.
Political reporting from outlets such as Politico and The Washington Sun has highlighted how public frustration about the Trump family’s financial ties to crypto made it harder for Republicans to pass crypto legislation despite industry spending, and how Democratic 2028 hopefuls are studying AI issues and advisors behind the scenes.
Conclusion
Experience from the crypto fights is clearly influencing how many Democrats approach AI policy and campaign finance. New pledges, PACs and public statements indicate a stronger willingness within the party to reject industry money and push for AI rules shaped by accountable government rather than corporate interests. More initiatives and public debates are likely as AI remains a central issue in the electoral cycle.
