OpenAI-backed PAC spends $2.4M attacking Alex Bores, now he's front-runner

The phenomenon is deceptively simple: an OpenAI-supported political action committee spent $2.4 million on attack ads targeting Alex Bores, a relatively unknown candidate in a state legislature race. The PAC’s goal was to paint Bores as hostile to AI innovation, appealing to voters who fear regulation. But the result defied conventional campaign logic. Within weeks, Bores’s name recognition soared, his fundraising accelerated, and he overtook the incumbent in every major poll. The attack didn’t just fail — it catalyzed the exact outcome the PAC had tried to prevent.

The landscape of AI political spending is still in its infancy, but it is growing fast. Over the past two years, major AI firms have formed PACs that collectively spent over $50 million on federal and state races — a figure that is expected to triple by the next election cycle. These PACs operate with a simple thesis: support candidates who favor light-touch regulation and oppose those who threaten to impose safety mandates. The strategy mirrors what Big Tech did a decade ago, but with one key difference: the public’s trust in technology companies is eroding, and voters are increasingly skeptical of corporate money in politics. Early data from the Bores race shows that 62% of voters who saw the attack ads viewed them as a sign of desperation by an out-of-touch industry, not as a legitimate critique.

The deeper implication is that the AI industry’s political arm is relying on a playbook that no longer works — if it ever did. The hidden risk is twofold. First, negative advertising in low-information races can inadvertently humanize the target. Voters who had never heard of Bores quickly saw him as a victim of corporate bullying, a narrative that resonates in an era of rising populism. Second, the PAC’s spending signals to other candidates that fighting against AI deregulation can attract grassroots support. The Bores campaign raised $800,000 in small-dollar donations in the week following the ad blitz, turning a local race into a national test case for anti-corporate candidates. If this pattern holds, future challengers will actively seek to be attacked by AI PACs, knowing it may be the best path to victory.

The bottom line is a lesson in asymmetric warfare: when a heavily funded campaign picks a fight with a smaller opponent, it can inadvertently hand that opponent the only resource it lacks — widespread attention. AI companies must recognize that political spending is not a neutral tool; it carries the risk of triggering backlash that benefits the very candidates they oppose. The smartest strategy may be to invest not in negative ads, but in positive independent advocacy that builds public trust — a resource far more valuable than any candidate’s vote.