The race for a Manhattan congressional seat has turned into an expensive proxy war between rival AI factions, with millions of dollars pouring in from investors linked to OpenAI and Anthropic. This AI primary feud is playing out in New York’s 12th Congressional District, where Assemblyman Alex Bores is running in the June 23 Democratic primary. A political group backed by OpenAI investors has spent more than $7 million on attack ads against Bores, while groups partly funded by Anthropic have poured over $10 million into boosting his campaign. Crypto billionaire Chris Larsen, an Anthropic investor, has pledged an additional $3.5 million to support Bores. The contest has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over AI regulation, with the primary shaping up as a high-stakes test of how tech donor money influences policy.
The RAISE Act: The Bill That Split AI’s Finest
At the heart of the feud is a New York state law requiring AI companies to disclose safeguards against catastrophic risks. This isn’t some hypothetical policy debate—it’s the AI primary feud playing out in legislative text. State Senator Bores spearheaded the RAISE Act, which mandates major AI firms file reports on their safety measures. The goal is AI safety reporting that gives regulators a clear picture of how companies are preparing for worst-case scenarios, from model failures to systemic vulnerabilities.
The bill didn’t sit well with everyone. Leading the Future, a political action committee backed by OpenAI investors, opposed Bores’ original proposal. They argued the requirements were too broad and could stifle innovation. But after negotiations, they acceded to a modified version that was eventually signed into law. This compromise illustrates the delicate balance of state-level AI regulation: you want oversight without crushing the industry’s momentum.
The RAISE Act angered some Silicon Valley players but won support from others, notably Anthropic investors. For them, the law represents a pragmatic step—mandatory reporting on catastrophic risk without dictating how companies build their models. It’s a middle ground that leaves room for growth while requiring transparency. As the primary heats up, this bill stands as a concrete example of how policy can fracture even the most unified tech communities.
OpenAI vs. Anthropic: A Family Feud in Silicon Valley
That fracture runs even deeper. Two of the most prominent AI companies are now bankrolling opposite sides of this primary race, reflecting a deep rift over how to regulate the technology they helped create. On one side, a political group called Leading the Future, underwritten by investors in OpenAI, has spent more than $7 million on ads against Bores. On the other, political groups partly funded by Anthropic have poured over $10 million into boosting Bores’ campaign. This AI primary feud isn’t just about one candidate—it exposes a larger AI company rivalry over the future of regulation.
Leading the Future’s donor list reveals the breadth of that divide. It counts Silicon Valley titans, major venture capitalists, and even alumni of the Trump administration among its contributors. Through a subsidiary, the group has spent $7.6 million specifically against Bores. Meanwhile, Anthropic’s backers are spending heavily to support him. The contrast shows how venture capital influence can split along ideological lines, even within the same industry. If you’re watching closely, this is a rare look at how political spending in primaries mirrors disagreements inside tech boardrooms. The stakes are high: the winner could shape how AI companies operate for years to come.
From Palantir Insiders to Tech Exile: Bores’ Ironic Journey
This race is a vivid example of the Ai primary feud spilling out of boardrooms and into the ballot box. Bores’ own story is a study in contrasts. He previously worked for Palantir, a data analytics firm known for its government contracts. During Trump’s first term, Bores quit over concerns about the company’s work on immigration enforcement. That was a clear act of tech worker activism, putting ethics ahead of career advancement.
But now, the irony is hard to miss. Bores faces opposition from a group called Leading the Future. Its backers include Silicon Valley titans, major venture capitalists, and — crucially — alumni of the Trump administration. The very ecosystem he left behind over immigration enforcement is now funding the fight against him. It’s a full-circle moment that raises pointed questions about Palantir ethics and the politics of tech money in elections.
So the race directly pits a former Palantir employee against donors with ties to the former administration. This isn’t just a local primary; it’s a proxy battle over the direction of the AI industry. The Ai primary feud here reflects deeper splits over values, loyalty, and the appropriate role of technology in government. For you as a voter, it’s a chance to see how these tech tensions play out in real-time, with consequences that could ripple beyond one district.
National Stakes: Trump’s AI Framework and the Battle Over Federal Preemption
Those ripples could reach all the way to Washington. The outcome of this primary may shape how AI is regulated nationwide, especially with former President Trump proposing a framework that would override state-level rules entirely. His plan calls for barring states from enacting their own AI laws, clearing the way for Congress to set a single national standard. That puts state-level efforts like New York’s RAISE Act directly in the crosshairs of federal AI preemption.
If a federal framework like Trump’s were to become law, it could invalidate the RAISE Act before it even takes full effect. This creates a sharp state vs federal regulation debate: should New York be allowed to experiment with its own AI rules, or is a unified national approach more practical for businesses and consumers alike? For you, the outcome determines whether AI oversight comes from your state capital or from Capitol Hill.
Adding another layer to this race is Jack Schlossberg, a Kennedy dynasty heir and social media personality who is also running for the seat. His candidacy could split votes or shift attention, potentially altering how the Ai primary feud plays out. With the Kennedy name still carrying weight in New York politics, his presence adds an unpredictable element to an already complex contest.
The stakes, in short, go far beyond one district. How this primary resolves could set a precedent for whether states or the federal government take the lead on AI regulation, influencing everything from consumer protections to innovation incentives for years to come.
The Cost of a Primary: Money, Polls, and Voter Sentiment
With well over $20 million in reported spending, this contest ranks among the most expensive House primaries in history. Yet, for all that cash, you might expect to see a deluge of voter polls. Surprisingly, almost no published polling data exists for this district. That makes it nearly impossible for you, as an observer, to gauge where voter sentiment actually lies.
Let’s break down the money trail. A political group backed by OpenAI investors has funneled more than $7 million into ads targeting Bores. On the other side, groups partly funded by Anthropic have spent over $10 million boosting Bores’ campaign. Adding to the complexity, Leading the Future has poured $7.6 million through a subsidiary against Bores. Crypto billionaire Chris Larsen, an Anthropic investor, has pledged an additional $3.5 million. It is not entirely clear whether the $7 million and the $7.6 million figures are separate or overlapping, which only deepens the campaign finance transparency question.
This lack of transparency is a practical concern. When you see such enormous sums in a primary election spending cycle, you want to know who is really influencing the outcome. Without clear disclosure, voters are left guessing. And without voter polls, you cannot tell if the ad barrage is actually shifting opinions. The AI primary feud is being fought in the dark, with dollars flooding in but no reliable data on how constituents feel. That disconnect makes this race a fascinating, and worrying, case study in modern campaign finance.
Frequently Asked Questions
How did Bores go from working at Palantir to being a target of Palantir-linked donors?
Bores built a career in data analytics at Palantir before entering politics. Once he took a stance on AI regulation that clashed with the company’s interests, former colleagues and Palantir-aligned donors began funding his opponent. This shift turned a former insider into a key figure in the Ai primary feud.
Why are OpenAI and Anthropic on opposite sides of this primary race?
OpenAI and Anthropic hold fundamentally different views on AI safety and regulation. OpenAI’s investors favor lighter oversight to accelerate growth, while Anthropic pushes for stricter guardrails. Their opposing endorsements in this race reflect that core disagreement, making the Ai primary feud a proxy battle for the industry’s future direction.
What would Trump’s proposed AI framework mean for state-level laws like the RAISE Act?
A federal framework from a future Trump administration could preempt state-level initiatives such as the RAISE Act. That would likely override local requirements for AI transparency and liability, centralizing control in Washington. For you, this means a single set of rules might replace the patchwork of state laws currently shaping the Ai primary feud.
