AI super PACs spent $79 million on 2026 US midterm elections

Political action committees on both sides of the artificial-intelligence policy fight spent heavily to influence Tuesday's US midterm elections, and most of their biggest bets did not pay off, TechCrunch and Fortune reported on 4 November 2026. AI super PACs spent $79 million across 68 House and Senate seats this cycle, according to the research group Tech Influence Watch, cited by Fortune.

Who spent what

• American Mission and Building the Future, aligned with the pro-industry group Leading the Future (LTF), collectively spent $4.8 million (precisely $4,801,981, per Fortune) backing a South Carolina Senate candidate, who lost the race 51.1% to 46.7%.
• American Mission spent more than $500,000 each on a House candidate in Montana ($590,428) and a House candidate in North Carolina ($509,067); both lost, according to Fortune and TechCrunch.
• LTF's allied group, Think Big, backed a sitting Florida member of Congress, who won re-election, TechCrunch reported.
• Public First, which is backed by Anthropic and advocates stronger AI safeguards, put $3 million into a PAC supporting a California state senator, who was leading the race at the time of publication, TechCrunch said.
• Guardrails Alliance, which campaigns to make AI-industry donations "a political liability," spent more than $1 million each opposing a California member of Congress and the Montana House candidate named above; the California incumbent lost to a challenger backed by $300,000 from the group, according to TechCrunch.
• LTF spent $27.38 million in the primaries, including $8 million opposing a New York state assembly member running for Congress, who lost his primary bid in June, TechCrunch reported.

Why it matters

Fortune noted that, as of 26 October, LTF had spent only $7.4 million of the $34 million it held on hand for the general election, according to the Intercept's analysis of federal campaign-finance filings, cited by Fortune. Guardrails Alliance's political director said the group's "goal is to make AI money politically toxic," according to TechCrunch. The underlying dispute — whether Congress should set a single national AI framework overriding state rules, or let states keep their own safeguards — remains unresolved, and both camps told TechCrunch they intend to keep spending through the 2028 elections. For governments and companies outside the United States, including those in the Caspian region watching how Washington regulates frontier AI, the episode is a reminder that US AI policy is still being contested through campaign spending rather than settled by a federal statute.