AI Super PAC Declares War on NY Safety Regulations
Source: cnbc.com
What Happened
A new bipartisan super PAC, "Leading the Future," has chosen its first electoral target: New York State Assemblyman Alex Bores. Bores, a Democrat running for New York's 12th Congressional District, co-sponsored the Responsible AI Safety and Education (RAISE) Act. This state-level legislation aims to impose critical guardrails on advanced machine-learning tools. Specifically, the RAISE Act requires major AI developers to publish safety protocols. These protocols would address severe misuses, like creating biological weapons or facilitating criminal acts. Companies would also need to disclose serious incidents, or face civil penalties from the state attorney general. The bill already passed New York's assembly and senate. However, Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who champions AI investments, has yet to sign it into law.
The super PAC, which launched last summer with over $100 million in backing, wasted no time in condemning Bores. Its leaders, political strategists Zac Moffatt and Josh Vlasto, labeled the RAISE Act as "ideological and politically motivated legislation." They claim such measures would "handcuff" America's technological edge. "Leading the Future" counts venture capital giant Andreessen Horowitz, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, AI search-engine company Perplexity, and SV Angel founder Ron Conway among its prominent financial supporters.
The Core Conflict
At the heart of this battle lies a fundamental tension: innovation versus regulation. "Leading the Future" argues that "patchwork, uninformed, and bureaucratic state laws" like the RAISE Act would hinder American progress. They warn this could open the door for China to dominate the global race for AI leadership. The PAC insists America needs a "clear and consistent national regulatory framework" to foster economic growth and protect users. They fear state-level actions threaten competitiveness and national security. This mirrors a similar situation in California. There, Governor Gavin Newsom recently vetoed a controversial AI safety bill, citing concerns it would create a "chilling effect" on the industry.
Bores, however, isn't backing down. He holds a master's in computer science, boasts two patents, and has nearly a decade of tech industry experience. He fired back at the PAC, stating, "If they are scared of people who understand their business regulating their business, they are telling on themselves." Bores and his co-sponsor, Andrew Gounardes, maintain the RAISE Act is carefully designed not to stifle innovation. Instead, it aims for responsible development and accountability. He quickly pivoted the PAC's attack into a fundraising plea for his congressional campaign, urging supporters to contribute "if you don't want Trump mega-donors writing all tech policy."
Industry's Political Playbook
"Leading the Future" portrays itself as a bipartisan effort. Zac Moffatt is a Republican strategist, while Josh Vlasto previously worked for prominent Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Andrew Cuomo. Yet, this "bipartisan" label hasn't prevented internal friction. Reports indicate the AI-friendly Trump administration, eager to lower regulatory barriers, felt "frustrated" with the PAC due to its Democratic affiliations. This reveals the intricate political tightrope the nascent AI lobby is walking. With over $100 million at its disposal, the PAC is gearing up for a significant push. It plans to expand operations into New York, California, Illinois, and Ohio by year-end, aiming for a national footprint by 2026. This aggressive strategy underscores the industry's determination to shape upcoming midterm elections, which will determine control of Congress.
Our Take
This escalating conflict in New York isn't just about a single state bill; it's a bellwether for the broader national and global debate on AI governance. The industry's massive financial backing and strategic political targeting signal a determined effort to influence regulation. We're seeing a familiar playbook unfold, reminiscent of established sectors like pharmaceuticals or energy. This approach aims to secure favorable legislative environments, potentially at the expense of robust public safety measures. While calls for a consistent national framework are valid to avoid a "patchwork" of confusing state laws, we must scrutinize the underlying motivation. Is it about efficiency, or about diluting accountability?
Bores’s stance, especially given his deep technical expertise, provides a crucial counter-narrative. He embodies the argument that informed technologists can and should regulate their own field. This directly challenges the industry's implication that state efforts are inherently "uninformed." The upcoming midterm elections will be pivotal. The outcome of battles like this will not only shape the future of machine learning development but also define who truly holds the reins in this rapidly evolving technological frontier: industry giants or elected public servants.
The Road Ahead
The confrontation between "Leading the Future" and Assemblyman Bores marks the official kickoff of the AI industry's aggressive foray into electoral politics. As generative models become more pervasive, expect these regulatory skirmishes to intensify. The choices made now will determine whether safety and accountability become foundational pillars or afterthoughts in the AI revolution. Voters and policymakers alike face a critical decision: prioritize rapid, unfettered growth, or insist on responsible innovation with clear guardrails.