Democratic advisers are warning their candidates not to go too hard at AI

Democratic consultants are privately encouraging their battleground candidates to avoid talking about AI regulations out of fear that powerful tech groups will unleash a tidal wave of spending against them ahead of November.

That guidance came from strategists in three separate top-tier House races, according to people involved in those races, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. And it follows a surge in AI panic on Capitol Hill as industry leaders warn about existential threats posed by their rapidly developing technology.

Voters are increasingly worried about AI: About two-thirds of Americans say there’s a risk advanced AI could destroy humanity in a new POLITICO Poll. President Donald Trump has called that concern a "hoax," leaving an opening for Democrats to seize on the issue. But they still are grappling with how hard to go after big tech.

Senior Democrats and candidates are worried that if they go too hard in criticizing AI, industry-affiliated super PACs could drop millions more dollars against them, according to interviews with more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers and strategists. They are especially worried about a slate of competitive races, including Reps. Don Davis in North Carolina, Marcy Kaptur in Ohio, Henry Cuellar in Texas and a handful of South Texas and Pennsylvania races, getting hit with even more spending on topics like AI.

The party is already struggling to keep up in the outside spending battle as Trump and his allies including Elon Musk, a major AI investor, flood the airwaves, though Musk’s spending isn’t primarily driven by AI concerns.

“We do need to be able to make sure that we’re regulating [AI] and addressing those real fears,” said one senior Democratic strategist working on Senate campaigns, who was granted anonymity to candidly discuss strategy. But “we don’t want AI money coming in.”

“Like any industry, there should be a conversation about guardrails,” said Cuellar, who is trying to hold onto a GOP-leaning South Texas seat. “But, every member needs to make their own decision based on their district and beliefs.”

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the former Progressive Caucus chair, said she was also worried that pro-AI groups will start targeting key Democrats.

“You know, these AI groups — they come out and they say that they're concerned, that they want regulation. But then they spend huge amounts of money on defeating anybody who wants legislative regulation,” Jayapal said in an interview.

With AI regulation on congressional Democrats’ agenda if they take power next year, Jayapal said AI groups will be “spending for candidates that they can count on to just allow them to write the bill.”

Some top Democratic candidates and their campaigns are quietly trying to avoid crossing any red lines for tech super PACs — even as it’s unclear exactly what those lines would be, after Musk and two of the biggest AI CEOs called for more regulation on the technology last week.

Democrats are especially wary of Leading the Future, a pro-AI industry super PAC that spent over $25 million in primary races this year and is backed by investors and executives of OpenAI. The rival super PAC network, Public First Action, pushes for AI regulation and is funded by OpenAI’s chief competitor, Anthropic.

Asked by POLITICO, Leading the Future declined to name a specific policy on AI it opposes.

“The only people that have both threatened and carried out spending and intimidation tactics against Democratic members of Congress over their positions on AI are Public First and other groups funded by Anthropic and effective altruists,” said Leading the Future spokesperson Josh Vlasto. “Our agenda is and has always been Congress passing a strong and smart national regulation which has broad and building support in Congress and across the country.”

On Wednesday, Leading the Future launched its first round of ads in the general election through its Republican PAC. The group is spending $2 million to boost GOP Senate candidates Julia Letlow in Louisiana, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith in Mississippi, Sen. Darline Graham in South Carolina and Sen. Mike Rounds in South Dakota — four Republicans in marginally competitive races that are unlikely to determine Senate control.

The two AI groups have been at odds. They spent in different primary races and went up against each other in the primary for retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler’s seat, where state Assemblymember Alex Bores’ AI-centered campaign ignited a spending war. A person familiar with Leading the Future’s strategy, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, told POLITICO in June that the group was unlikely to target another candidate this year with the kind of multi-million dollar negative ad deluge it dumped on Bores, and a person close to the group said that hasn’t changed. Democrats believe the groups could battle against each other again in key races.

Brad Carson, the co-founder of Public First Action, said the network will “absolutely” get involved in the general election.

Public First Action uses two “litmus tests” to weigh whether or not to jump into races, Carson said. If someone seeking office shows “strong support for export controls and strong opposition to the preemption of state laws regarding AI, absent a federal framework,” then they are a prime candidate to receive the group’s support.

And if a candidate were to hold the opposite position — opposition to export controls and support for the preemption of state laws — his group would be inclined to jump in and spend against them.

“It's really about finding the people who want to step out and be heroes for you,” Carson said.

On Wednesday, Anthropic’s policy chief Sarah Heck said at POLITICO’s Decoded summit that the United States “needs to stay in the lead on AI” over China, arguing “you can’t do safety from second place.” She agreed AI firms can’t be left on their own to ensure safety within their own companies, but declined to endorse bipartisan legislation for external regulation.

Some Democrats want to go hard on regulating AI in spite of the risk of antagonizing pro-industry groups.

Abdul El-Sayed, Democrats’ Senate nominee in Michigan, previously called for a regulatory crackdown on AI and is now advocating for a “full pause at the frontier of research.” He told POLITICO in an interview on Wednesday that he’d “rather be on the truth than dodge [AI industry] money.”

Still, El-Sayed hasn’t committed to running ads on the issue. Battleground Democratic Reps. Susie Lee (Nev.) and Greg Landsman (Ohio) also told POLITICO they weren’t planning ads on AI safeguards, even as they advocate for more regulations. It’s a sign that even as voters concerns’ rise about the technology, it’s not yet become a top issue for the November election.

Meanwhile, Republicans are hoping that the AI super PACs might come in and help boost them in other states — like Georgia, where Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff has been aggressive in criticizing the industry, or Texas, where the GOP nominee, Attorney General Ken Paxton, has been slightly behind in most recent polls.“We could use the help in some races like that,” said one GOP senator, granted anonymity to candidly discuss the internal conversations.