The $20 Million AI Regulation War Comes to Washington

Anthropic just wrote a $20 million check to change Washington's mind about AI. It's a direct challenge to Big Tech's $125 million war chest aimed at keeping regulators at bay.

The AI safety company announced Thursday it's bankrolling Public First Action, a group that's doing something unusual in tech politics: backing candidates from both parties who actually want to regulate artificial intelligence.

The Unlikely Republican Targets

Their first moves are telling. Six-figure ad buys are going to support Marsha Blackburn, the Tennessee Republican running for governor, and Pete Ricketts, the Nebraska senator seeking re-election. Both are Republicans, but they're not the kind Silicon Valley typically embraces.

Blackburn has championed kids' online safety legislation. Ricketts introduced a bill this year to limit advanced U.S. chip sales to China. These aren't exactly the "move fast and break things" policies that Big Tech prefers.

Public First Action plans to support 30 to 50 candidates this cycle, aiming to raise between $50 million and $75 million. It's led by former lawmakers Brad Carson and Chris Stewart, giving it bipartisan credibility that pure industry groups lack.

David vs. Multiple Goliaths

The math is daunting. On the other side, Leading the Future PAC has already raised $125 million from tech's biggest names: Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman, venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, and Perplexity AI.

But Carson believes public opinion is on his side. A September Gallup poll found 80% of Americans want AI safety rules, even if it slows technological development. "Leading the Future is driven by three billionaires who are close to Donald Trump," Carson told CNBC. "We believe it should be more democratically accountable."

The stakes couldn't be higher. We're not just talking about technical standards or industry guidelines. This is about who gets to decide how the most powerful technology of our time develops: market forces or democratic institutions.

Trump's AI Contradictions

Anthropic faces a peculiar challenge. The company has been in Trump administration crosshairs since October, when AI czar David Sacks accused it of running a "sophisticated regulatory capture strategy based on fear-mongering."

Sacks claimed Anthropic was "principally responsible for the state regulatory frenzy that is damaging the startup ecosystem." Two months later, Trump signed an executive order creating a single federal AI framework, effectively neutering state-level regulations from Democratic strongholds like California and New York.

It's a classic Washington contradiction: criticize a company for seeking regulation, then implement federal regulation to override state efforts.

The Real Stakes

This isn't really about campaign contributions or political horse-trading. It's about a fundamental question: Should AI development be guided primarily by market incentives or democratic oversight?

Anthropic's blog post framed it as keeping "risks in check" while "maintaining meaningful safeguards, promoting job growth, protecting children, and demanding real transparency." That's policy-speak for: we think some rules are necessary.

The opposing view, backed by that $125 million war chest, essentially argues that innovation moves too fast for regulation to keep up, and that market competition will solve safety concerns better than government oversight.