Meta, the company that owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, has quietly launched two new super PACs to influence the 2026 midterm elections. The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Meta plans to spend $65 million — one PAC backing AI-friendly Democrats, another backing AI-friendly Republicans. The goal: elect lawmakers who won't regulate the AI business Meta is betting its future on.
This isn't lobbying. This is electoral engineering. And Meta isn't alone.
The Architecture
Meta's two super PACs are called Forge the Future Project (targeting Republican races, starting in Texas) and Making Our Tomorrow (targeting Democratic races, starting in Illinois). By running parallel operations on both sides of the aisle, Meta ensures that regardless of which party wins any given seat, the winner will have been financially supported by AI-industry money.
This is a new posture for Meta. The company has historically been cautious about direct political spending, mostly making small corporate PAC donations and contributing to presidential inaugurations. The $65 million commitment represents a dramatic escalation — and a signal that Meta views AI regulation as an existential business risk worth spending to prevent.
But Meta's money is just one stream in a flood. CNN reported last week that Leading the Future, a super PAC backed by Andreessen Horowitz and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, is pledging at least $100 million for the midterms. Their stated goal: electing lawmakers who will pass a single federal AI regulatory framework that preempts stricter state laws.
Combined, these two efforts alone represent over $165 million in AI-industry political spending for a single election cycle. And those are just the ones we know about.
The First Battleground: New York's 12th District
The collision is already happening. In New York's 12th Congressional District, Democratic candidate Alex Bores is running explicitly on a platform of AI regulation — and the AI PACs are spending heavily against him.
Bores told CNN on Wednesday that the attack spending has ironically boosted his profile: "The fact that they're being so aggressive with it, I think, has been redounding to my benefit. I've had a lot of constituents who have reached out and said, 'I hadn't even heard of you until all these text messages.'"
The race to replace retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler is becoming the first real test of whether AI-industry money can buy congressional seats — or whether voters see the spending itself as a reason to vote the other way.
What They're Actually Buying
The AI industry's political strategy has a specific legislative goal: federal preemption. That means passing a single national AI law that overrides the patchwork of state regulations currently being built in California, Illinois, New York, and elsewhere.
This matters because state-level regulation is currently the only AI regulation that exists in the US. California's attorney general is building a permanent AI enforcement unit. Illinois has biometric data laws that affect AI training. New York City requires bias audits for AI hiring tools. If Congress passes a weak federal law that preempts these, the net effect is less regulation, not more.
The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee requested a GAO review this week of all existing federal and state AI laws — a step that could inform (or delay) federal legislation. Meanwhile, the money flows.
The Backlash
The spending comes at an awkward moment. Across the country, communities are fighting the construction of energy-devouring AI data centers that raise electricity prices and strain local water supplies. Anti-Big-Tech sentiment is growing in both parties. Watchdog account @OilPACTracker predicted Meta's spending could backfire: "Big Tech money is toxic."
Illinois congressional candidate Reed Showalter responded to the NYT report directly: "We deserve representatives who are going to take an honest look at AI and regulate it accordingly. We can't afford more corrupt politicians bought by Big Tech."
What to Watch
- New York's 12th District primary. If Alex Bores wins despite AI PAC spending against him, it proves Big Tech money can't buy AI-friendly seats. If he loses, expect PAC spending to multiply nationwide.
- Federal preemption bills. Watch for AI legislation that sounds reasonable but contains language overriding state laws. That's the real prize the money is buying.
- The data center backlash. As communities fight AI infrastructure, the gap between industry spending and voter sentiment could become a political vulnerability for candidates who take AI money.
Why This Matters
For the first time, AI regulation isn't just a policy debate — it's a campaign finance issue. Over $165 million in disclosed AI-industry spending is about to reshape congressional races across the country. The question isn't whether AI should be regulated. The question is whether the companies building AI get to choose the people who write the rules. Right now, they're spending like they expect to.