AI-focused political action committees on both sides of the AI policy debate spent millions trying to shape the midterm elections, and the results were mixed. On the industry side, American Mission and Building the Future collectively spent $4.8 million supporting South Carolina Senate candidate Darline Graham, who lost. American Mission, the Republican spending arm of Leading the Future (LTF) — a political group backed by OpenAI President Greg Brockman and VC firm Andreessen Horowitz — also spent more than $500,000 apiece supporting Republican House candidates Aaron Flint in Montana and Laurie Buckhout in North Carolina; both lost. LTF’s Democratic spending arm, Think Big, had better luck backing Florida Rep. Jared Moskowitz, who won reelection.

Groups pushing for stronger AI safeguards also had mixed results. Public First, backed by Anthropic, supported several Republicans who lost through its affiliated PAC but had more success with Democratic candidates. It also contributed $3 million to a PAC supporting California state Sen. Scott Wiener, who was leading his race at the time of publication. Guardrails Alliance, which has sought to make taking money from AI companies a political liability, spent more than $1 million apiece opposing California Rep. Jimmy Gomez and Montana’s Aaron Flint; both lost. The group also spent $300,000 supporting Angela Gonzales-Torres, who defeated Gomez.

It is hard to separate the effect of AI-related spending from the broader Democratic wave that swept Tuesday’s elections. Elon Musk, who reportedly poured half a billion dollars into supporting Republicans, also saw many of his candidates lose, and LTF backed some candidates it expected to win only to see them lose to Democrats.

For LTF, however, the general election was not the main focus. The group told TechCrunch before Election Day that it sees primaries as a more effective use of money, because spending there can build name recognition and help candidates set AI policy agendas. LTF spent $27.38 million in the primaries, including $8 million alone opposing New York Assembly member Alex Bores, who lost his congressional bid in June. When deciding whether to enter a general election race, LTF evaluates how competitive the race is, whether its spending could make a difference, and whether it should preserve resources for future elections.

Charlie Blaettler, political director of Guardrails Alliance, offered a different explanation for why LTF spent comparatively little in the general election: “They don’t want their money to become an issue in these elections.” He cited the Michigan Senate primary, where the pro-Israel group AIPAC spent close to $30 million backing Democratic candidate Haley Stevens against Abdul El-Sayed. Stevens conceded the primary to El-Sayed, who went on to win the Senate seat. “AIPAC became the story in that race,” Blaettler said. “We know people hate AI billionaires. They hate the people running these companies. They’re very distrustful and disgusted by the political spending and lobbying that the tech industry does. If they spend in a competitive race, they would just become an enormous liability for their candidates.”

The core disagreement among AI PACs, whether pro-industry or pro-regulation, remains whether Congress should establish a national AI framework that overrides state laws or whether states should keep their own ability to impose safeguards. Neither side appears ready to back down. LTF, which favors a single national AI framework, told TechCrunch it plans to keep spending in the 2028 elections, while Guardrails Alliance says it wants to continue opposing candidates backed by the AI industry. Blaettler said LTF’s ads rarely touch AI, focusing instead on popular issues for each candidate, whereas Guardrails Alliance’s ads are specifically about who takes money from the AI industry. “Our goal is to make AI money politically toxic,” he said.