An OpenAI-linked political action committee plans to spend $140 million during the 2026 midterms to push for a national AI regulation framework, a campaign that puts corporate power squarely in the middle of how AI will be governed and who gets to decide the terms. Axios said the group, Leading the Future, and its affiliated nonprofit, Build American AI, are seeking allies in the next Congress while selling voters on AI’s economic upside.
Who Gets to Set the Rules
The money trail is the story here. Leading the Future has close ties with OpenAI and Andreessen Horowitz, Axios said, and the PAC is not hiding its goal: it wants a national framework and wants to block a state-by-state approach. That means a small cluster of well-connected actors is trying to steer policy at the federal level, where the decisions can be made once and imposed broadly, instead of leaving any room for local resistance or different approaches.
Axios said the PAC has had more success in GOP primaries than Democratic ones. In Georgia, it spent $1.1 million helping two GOP House candidates, Houston Gaines in the 10th District and Jim Kingston in the 1st District, win in safely Republican seats. In Kentucky’s Senate race, the group announced a $750,000 investment supporting Rep. Andy Barr that began during the Republican primary and will continue through the general election. The pattern is plain enough: the PAC is using its war chest to pick winners inside the electoral machinery and build a bench of friendly lawmakers.
The Electoral Machine at Work
In March, the group went 3-for-3 backing GOP candidates in Texas and North Carolina. Later that month in Illinois, one candidate it backed, former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., lost a Democratic primary, while another, former Rep. Melissa Bean, won. This week, another Democrat it is supporting, Rep. Val Hoyle (D-Ore.), won her primary in Oregon. The details show the same old arrangement: corporate-backed political spending moving through primaries, general elections, and party labels alike, with the PAC testing where its money can buy the most influence.
The group’s affiliated nonprofit, Build American AI, is part of the same operation. Axios said Leading the Future and its affiliated nonprofit organization plan to spend $140 million during the 2026 midterms. The nonprofit label does not change the basic structure: one arm of the machine funds the other, and both are built to shape the rules around a technology that will affect ordinary people whether they asked for it or not.
Selling Consent for the Next Wave
Axios said the group believes broader AI adoption, from daily use to app downloads, helps counter the “AI-doomer” sentiment reflected in many public surveys. That is the pitch: normalize the technology, expand its use, and soften public resistance while the policy framework is written above everyone’s heads. The PAC is not just spending to elect allies; it is also trying to manufacture consent for the industry’s expansion.
New polling from the group found that 52% of Americans believe AI will have a positive impact, compared with 36% who say it will have a negative effect. Optimism was especially high among Republican voters, with 60% expressing positive views of AI, according to a survey conducted this month. The survey sampled 1,000 registered voters and was conducted online by RMG Research, the polling firm founded by Scott Rasmussen.
At the same time, Axios said broader political challenges for the industry are surfacing in other polls, including a potential backlash among younger voters. Only 18% of Americans ages 14 to 29 say they feel hopeful about AI, according to a recent Gallup survey. That gap matters because the people most likely to live with the consequences are not necessarily the ones being courted by the moneyed campaign to frame the debate.
The whole operation is aimed at the 2026 midterms, where Leading the Future and its affiliated nonprofit plan to spend $140 million while looking for allies in the next Congress. The target is not just a policy outcome, but the structure of power itself: who writes the rules, who benefits from them, and who is expected to accept the results as progress.