AI regulation has become a campaign-finance story in New York’s 12th Congressional District. AP reported on June 17, 2026, that a political group funded by OpenAI investors has spent more than $7 million opposing Assemblyman Alex Bores, while political groups partly funded by Anthropic and its allies have spent more than $10 million supporting him.
Bores is not a random target. He helped craft New York’s RAISE Act, a frontier-model safety law that requires large AI developers to publish safety-protocol information and report incidents to the state within 72 hours of determining that an incident occurred.
The money is about the rulebook
The June 23 Democratic primary is a local race, but the spending makes it a national AI-policy signal. AP describes Bores as a former computer engineer and a central figure behind the RAISE Act. The law has become part of the broader fight over whether states can impose frontier-model obligations or whether Congress should preempt state rules with a federal framework.
That is why the spending matters. This is not only about one candidate’s record. It is about whether politicians who push strict AI-safety rules become examples to others, either as cautionary tales or as proof that regulation has organized support.
Be precise about who is spending
The cleanest reading is also the most careful one: AP is describing political groups and investors, not a simple corporate check from OpenAI or Anthropic. It says the opposing group, Leading the Future, is underwritten by investors in OpenAI and prominent Silicon Valley figures. It says groups partly funded by Anthropic, plus allied donors, are supporting Bores.
That distinction matters because AI politics is becoming factional. Companies, investors, nonprofits, founders, and policy groups do not always line up neatly. A company’s public policy position, an investor’s campaign spending, and a political group’s ad strategy can point in the same direction without being the same actor.
For readers, the useful question is not “which company is good?” It is which policy outcome each coalition is trying to make more likely.
The RAISE Act is the policy object
New York’s official signing announcement says the RAISE Act requires large AI developers to create and publish information about safety protocols and report incidents to the state within 72 hours. The state framed it as a transparency and safety standard for AI frontier models.
The NYS Senate bill page summarizes the legislation as relating to the training and use of artificial intelligence frontier models and establishing remedies for violations. That puts New York in the group of states trying to regulate the most capable model developers directly.
Industry critics worry that state-by-state laws create compliance fragmentation and slow deployment. Supporters argue that federal inaction leaves states as the only realistic venue for frontier-model rules. The Bores race turns that abstract fight into a concrete political test.
