Leading the Future super PAC

📋Page Status

Page Type:ContentStyle Guide →Standard knowledge base article

Quality:73 (Good)

Importance:85 (High)

Last edited:2026-02-01 (today)

Words:2.6k

Structure:

📊 2📈 0🔗 5📚 25•15%Score: 12/15

LLM Summary:Leading the Future represents a $125 million industry effort to prevent AI regulation through political spending, directly opposing AI safety advocates and state-level oversight measures. This marks a significant escalation in AI governance battles, with major companies using political mechanisms to shape regulatory outcomes.

Quick Assessment

Aspect	Details
Type	Bipartisan super PAC network
Launch date	August 25, 2025
Total funding	$125 million raised (as of January 2026)
Cash reserves	$70 million
Key backers	OpenAI, Andreessen Horowitz, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, SV Angel, Perplexity AI
Primary goal	Promote unified federal AI regulation over state-level “patchwork” laws
Target elections	2026 U.S. midterm elections
Leadership	Zac Moffatt (CEO, Targeted Victory) and Josh Vlasto (former Fairshake strategist)

Overview

Leading the Future is a pro-AI industry super PAC launched in August 2025 by a coalition of major AI companies, venture capital firms, and Silicon Valley investors to shape federal AI policy and influence the 2026 U.S. midterm elections.¹² With over $125 million raised and $70 million in cash reserves as of January 2026, it represents one of the largest political spending efforts by the technology sector focused specifically on AI regulation.³

The organization operates through a network of federal and state super PACs plus 501(c)(4) advocacy organizations, enabling it to conduct independent expenditures supporting pro-innovation candidates and opposing those who back stricter AI regulations.¹² Its core mission is to advance a “responsible national framework” for AI governance at the federal level while resisting what it characterizes as fragmented state-level regulations.¹⁴ Key supporters include OpenAI President Greg Brockman, Andreessen Horowitz partners Marc Andreessen and Benjamin Horowitz, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, and SV Angel founder Ron Conway.³⁵

Leading the Future explicitly models itself on Fairshake, the cryptocurrency industry’s super PAC that spent over $130 million in 2024 elections and successfully influenced several congressional races.⁶ The organization’s launch reflects growing tensions between AI industry leaders who advocate for minimal federal oversight to maintain innovation speed and policymakers in states like California, New York, and Massachusetts who have advanced comprehensive AI safety and transparency legislation.⁷

History and Founding

Leading the Future was announced on August 25, 2025, in Washington, D.C., with initial commitments exceeding $100 million from top AI industry stakeholders.¹² The super PAC’s formation was directly inspired by the success of Fairshake, the pro-cryptocurrency political action committee that demonstrated how coordinated industry spending could reshape congressional races in 2024.⁶ Josh Vlasto, a co-founder of Leading the Future and former Fairshake spokesman, brought this strategic model to the AI industry.⁸

The organization’s philosophical foundation aligns with the 2023 Techno-Optimist Manifesto published by Marc Andreessen of Andreessen Horowitz, which argued for unfettered technological innovation as a moral imperative.⁹ In internal documents and public statements, some backers have characterized AI deceleration as a threat to human lives, with manifestos framing opposition to rapid AI development in stark moral terms.⁹

Leading the Future launched operations initially in four states—New York, California, Illinois, and Ohio—with plans to expand nationally throughout 2026.¹² The timing was strategic, positioning the organization to influence both primary and general election races during what supporters described as “ground zero” for AI policy battles.¹⁰

By January 2026, the super PAC network had raised $125 million total, with $70 million remaining in cash reserves distributed across its main organization ($39.3 million), affiliated super PACs Think Big ($5.4 million) and American Mission ($5 million), and advocacy arm Build American AI.³¹¹

Leadership and Key People

Leading the Future is co-led by Zac Moffatt and Josh Vlasto, who serve as the organization’s primary strategists and executives.¹²¹³

Zac Moffatt is the founder and CEO of Targeted Victory LLC, a conservative political consulting firm that has raised over $2 billion online for Republican clients over two decades, including work for more than half of current Republican Senate and House leadership.¹²¹³ He previously served as digital director for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and brings extensive experience in Republican political operations.¹³

Josh Vlasto is a partner at Bamberger & Vlasto LLC and previously served as spokesman and strategic media strategist for Fairshake, the cryptocurrency super PAC.¹²¹³ Before his work in tech industry advocacy, Vlasto worked for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, bringing Democratic political experience to complement Moffatt’s Republican background.¹³

The organization’s major funders and supporters include:

Greg Brockman (OpenAI President and co-founder): Contributed $12.5 million personally, with another $12.5 million from his wife Anna Brockman³⁵
Marc Andreessen and Benjamin Horowitz (Andreessen Horowitz partners): $12.5 million each³⁵
Joe Lonsdale (8VC founder and Palantir co-founder): Major contributor³⁵
Ron Conway (SV Angel founder): Contributed $500,000 to affiliated Think Big PAC¹¹
Perplexity AI: Corporate backer¹²

Additional tech industry leaders are expected to join as endorsers and contributors throughout the 2026 election cycle.³

Funding and Financial Structure

Leading the Future disclosed total fundraising of $125 million in the second half of 2025, with $70 million in combined cash reserves across its network as of December 31, 2025.³¹¹ The main Leading the Future federal super PAC raised $50.3 million directly and held $39.3 million in cash on hand.¹¹

The organization operates through multiple affiliated entities that received $5 million each in seed funding from the main super PAC:¹¹

Think Big super PAC: Holds $5.4 million in cash reserves; has conducted independent expenditures in Democratic primaries¹¹
American Mission super PAC: Holds $5 million in cash reserves; has supported Republican candidates¹¹
Build American AI: 501(c)(4) advocacy organization for policy development, legislative scorecards, and grassroots campaigns¹¹¹

Major individual contributions include:

Donor	Amount	Recipient
Greg Brockman and Anna Brockman	$12.5 million each ($25 million total)	Leading the Future
Marc Andreessen	$12.5 million	Leading the Future
Benjamin Horowitz	$12.5 million	Leading the Future
Ron Conway	$500,000	Think Big PAC
Joe Lonsdale (via Lonsdale Enterprises)	$250,000	American Mission PAC

The super PAC structure allows unlimited fundraising from corporations, individuals, and other organizations, with disclosure required only through periodic Federal Election Commission filings.¹¹ As a 501(c)(4) organization, Build American AI can engage in political advocacy without disclosing its donors, leading critics to characterize it as a “dark money advocacy offshoot.”¹⁴

Activities and Campaign Strategy

Leading the Future employs a multi-layered political strategy combining direct candidate support, opposition campaigns, policy advocacy, and grassroots organizing.¹² The organization’s federal-level activities focus on identifying and supporting candidates who advocate for a unified national AI regulatory framework while opposing those who back state-level regulations.¹²

At the state level, Leading the Future works to elevate candidates who resist what it characterizes as “fragmented” regulatory approaches in states like California, New York, Massachusetts, and Colorado, where comprehensive AI legislation has advanced.⁷¹⁵ The organization’s 501(c)(4) arms conduct policy development, create legislative scorecards rating lawmakers on AI issues, coordinate grassroots campaigns, and provide rapid response to counter what they term “doomer” narratives about AI risks.¹²

In its first major campaign expenditures, affiliated super PACs demonstrated the aggressive tactics the organization would employ:

Think Big PAC spent over $118,000 opposing New York Assemblyman Alex Bores in the Democratic primary for New York’s 12th congressional district, later spending an additional $326,000 on television and digital ads.¹⁶¹⁷
American Mission PAC spent over $243,000 supporting Republican candidate Chris Gober in Texas’s 10th congressional district.¹⁶

The Think Big PAC attacks on Alex Bores proved particularly controversial, as they focused on his previous work as a Palantir engineer, alleging he had built technology enabling ICE deportations—despite the fact that Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale was a major funder of Leading the Future.¹⁷ Bores’ campaign sent a cease-and-desist letter to Think Big PAC and television stations, calling the ads false and defamatory, but the PAC continued its spending.¹⁷

Leading the Future has explicitly stated its intention to oppose prominent AI safety advocates and researchers, referring to figures like Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio as “AI doomers” whose regulatory proposals would undermine U.S. competitiveness against China.¹⁸¹⁹ The organization frames AI regulation as a national security issue, arguing that excessive oversight would enable Chinese dominance in the technology sector.¹²⁰

Opposition to State-Level AI Regulation

A central focus of Leading the Future’s political strategy is opposing state-level AI legislation, which the organization characterizes as creating a compliance “patchwork” that would hinder innovation.⁷¹⁵ The super PAC has targeted lawmakers who sponsor or support AI safety bills, most notably Alex Bores in New York, who authored the RAISE Act requiring AI companies to submit safety plans, conduct transparency disclosures, and face penalties up to $30 million for violations.²¹

Despite Bores’ claims that his legislation was developed in consultation with OpenAI and Anthropic and that requirements for third-party audits were removed based on industry feedback, Leading the Future characterized the bill as anti-innovation and made him a primary target.²¹ The controversy highlighted tensions within the AI industry itself, with some companies privately supporting regulatory frameworks while industry-funded political organizations publicly opposed them.

California has been another major battleground, where comprehensive AI legislation covering algorithmic accountability, deepfake disclosure, transparency requirements, testing standards, and liability provisions advanced through the state legislature in 2025.⁷ Leading the Future positioned itself against these efforts, arguing that companies would face impossible compliance challenges if forced to navigate fifty different state regulatory frameworks with potentially conflicting requirements.⁷

Criticisms and Controversies

Leading the Future has faced substantial criticism from AI safety advocates, pro-regulation lawmakers, and public interest groups who characterize the organization as an attempt to use financial power to block oversight of a potentially dangerous technology.

Public Sentiment and Democratic Opposition

A competing super PAC called Public First, co-founded by former Republican Representative Chris Stewart and former Democratic Representative Brad Carson, launched with a $50 million fundraising goal to support pro-regulation candidates from both parties.²⁰²² Carson argued that Leading the Future represents only “15% of public sentiment” despite having “$100 million,” citing polling data showing broad public support for AI regulation.²⁰

Multiple surveys support this claim. A Gallup poll found that 80% of Americans support AI safety measures even if they slow development, while Pew Research documented bipartisan concern about AI risks.²³ Michael Kleinman of the Future of Life Institute stated, “Big Tech can’t buy trust,” arguing that the AI industry is “out of step with public opinion.”²³

Accusations of Hypocrisy and False Advertising

The Think Big PAC attacks on Alex Bores generated particular controversy due to perceived hypocrisy. Bores accused the organization of attacking him for Palantir work building ICE technology while being funded by Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, who remains a Trump supporter.¹⁷ Bores characterized the ads as “dirty politics” and sent legal threats to television stations airing them, though the stations continued running the spots.¹⁷

Concerns About Industry Capture

Critics, including Bores and advocacy groups like Encode AI, have characterized Leading the Future’s spending as an attempt to secure “unbridled control” over AI’s development and deployment across workforce, education, utilities, and climate policy.²⁰²⁴ Bores framed the $100 million expenditure as a “venture capital investment” with potential “trillion-dollar returns,” suggesting that industry backers view political spending as financially rational given AI’s economic stakes.²⁰

Sunny Gandhi, Vice President of Encode AI, described the dynamic as “David versus Goliath,” with youth-led advocacy organizations and individual lawmakers facing a “$125 million behemoth” seeking to prevent any meaningful oversight.²⁴ The organization has been accused of embracing “crypto-style” aggressive tactics, with reports indicating internal discussions about strategies to “tear apart” political opponents and “throw obscene amounts of money at politicians” to block regulatory oversight.²⁵

National Security Framing Disputes

Leading the Future consistently frames AI regulation as a national security risk, arguing that U.S. oversight would enable Chinese AI superiority.¹²⁰ Critics characterize this as “weaponizing” national security concerns to prevent democratic governance of the technology, noting that other advanced democracies including the European Union have implemented AI regulations without ceding technological leadership to China.²⁵

Relationship to AI Safety Community

Leading the Future positions itself in direct opposition to much of the AI safety community, particularly researchers and organizations focused on existential risks from advanced AI systems. The organization has publicly characterized prominent AI safety researchers like Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio as “doomers” whose concerns would unjustifiably slow AI development.¹⁸¹⁹

The super PAC’s backers, particularly Andreessen Horowitz, have articulated a philosophical stance that views AI acceleration as a moral imperative and frames caution as potentially causing harm through forgone benefits.⁹ This aligns with effective accelerationism (e/acc) perspectives that emphasize rapid technological advancement, contrasting sharply with AI safety perspectives emphasizing careful development and robust safety measures.

No evidence suggests Leading the Future has engaged with or funded technical AI safety research, alignment work, or organizations focused on ensuring AI systems remain beneficial and controllable. The organization’s activities are entirely focused on political advocacy to minimize regulatory constraints on AI development and deployment.

Key Uncertainties

Several important questions remain about Leading the Future’s impact and strategy:

Electoral effectiveness: Will the organization’s spending successfully reshape congressional composition on AI issues, or will public concern about AI risks prove more influential than industry funding?
Internal AI industry alignment: To what extent do companies whose leaders fund Leading the Future privately support some regulatory frameworks while publicly opposing them through political spending?
Regulatory outcomes: Will Leading the Future’s push for federal preemption succeed in blocking state-level AI regulations, or will states continue advancing their own frameworks?
International competitiveness: Is the organization’s core argument correct that U.S. AI regulation would enable Chinese dominance, or can democratic governance and technological leadership coexist?
Public trust: Will aggressive political spending by AI companies increase or decrease public trust in the technology and the industry developing it?
Long-term industry coordination: Will Leading the Future serve as a durable political operation for the AI industry comparable to pharmaceutical or energy sector advocacy organizations, or is it a temporary response to a specific regulatory moment?