The panel generally agrees that the 'Who Decides' campaign is a strategic attempt to influence AI regulation, potentially leading to regulatory capture and consolidation in the industry. They express concern about policy fragmentation, regulatory arbitrage, and litigation risks, with a bearish sentiment on the potential impact on AI incumbents and users.
Risk: Policy fragmentation leading to heavy compliance costs and slowed deployment of AI safety measures.
Opportunity: None identified.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
NY Lawmaker Launches $30 Million Effort To Coordinate Democrat Control Of AI
New York Assemblymember Alex Bores is launching a $30 million effort to unite Democrats behind a common artificial intelligence regulatory agenda ahead of the 2028 elections, taking the issue that defined his unsuccessful congressional campaign to a national stage.
New York State Assembly member Alex BoresHis …
Read more
NY Lawmaker Launches $30 Million Effort To Coordinate Democrat Control Of AI
New York Assemblymember Alex Bores is launching a $30 million effort to unite Democrats behind a common artificial intelligence regulatory agenda ahead of the 2028 elections, taking the issue that defined his unsuccessful congressional campaign to a national stage.
New York State Assembly member Alex BoresHis congressional run was bankrolled by Anthropic's political money, a PAC funded with $20 million from the company and $401,250 from its employees, and his new group has not said who is funding it.
The organization, "Who Decides," is launching Tuesday with Bores and his former chief of staff, Anna Myers, leading an effort to "build the winning Democratic answer to AI." Its objective is to turn concerns about the technology into a shared platform for Democratic candidates, from presidential contenders to candidates further down the ballot.
"Who Decides' goal is that by 2028, Democratic candidates from the top of the ticket on down run with a common AI safety agenda," the group's launch announcement states. "That means addressing the harms people already see and the broader danger that increasingly powerful and out-of-control systems could destabilize our economy, our democracy, and our safety."
The group plans to concentrate on 11 states it identifies as important to the 2028 presidential primary and general election: South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan, Virginia, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Its plans include quarterly state and national polling, national conferences and partnerships with local organizations, Politico reports.
Those partnerships would bring together labor unions, parents, educators, civil-rights organizations, faith groups and other constituencies. The organization says it will work with those groups to develop AI policy positions and put them before candidates through questionnaires, forums, endorsements and briefings.
"We don't let five people write the laws for hundreds of millions of Americans," Bores says in the announcement, referring to the concentration of decision-making among AI executives. "There is no reason to let them write the rules for AI."
An Organizing Push Ahead Of 2028
The launch follows a series of warnings from within the AI industry and competing political responses over how aggressively Washington should intervene. Former Anthropic and OpenAI researcher Jacob Coxon warned last week that increasingly powerful AI could threaten humanity. Leaders at Anthropic and OpenAI subsequently called for slowing development so safety measures could keep pace.
Former President Barack Obama has urged Democrats to make AI a central political issue, with plans addressing both safety and the technology's economic consequences. His comments included a call for the party's 2028 presidential candidates to focus on the issue.
The launch comes days after AI techbros agreed that a 'pause' in development was needed along with new oversight (something Beijing won't agree to). In a Saturday essay which set off the calls to slow down, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei proposes governance that lives largely inside the industry: third-party evaluators embedded in the labs on terms the labs set, with the right to publish their findings; coordination among frontier companies on safety standards, enabled by a narrow antitrust waiver from Washington; and, only later, agreements with foreign governments. He calls federal regulation of every frontier lab the most effective approach but argues that passing laws takes time. Who Decides starts from the premise that "a few executives inside a handful of companies are making all the decisions," and it refuses their money. The two efforts want many of the same rules, including published safety plans, incident reporting and independent testing of frontier models, and disagree about who should write them and how soon. The industry's safety wing has already bet on Bores once: Public First Action, a PAC funded by a $20 million Anthropic donation, spent $450,000 supporting him in the primary.
President Trump pushed in the opposite direction Monday, rejecting calls for additional restrictions and arguing that existing government powers were sufficient. He also warned that slowing American development could benefit China.
Incest Is Best?
Bores' new group grew out of a campaign funded by Amodei's network - which runs through Effective altruism. The same network produced METR, the evaluator Amodei's essay names as his preferred watchdog - which itself was bankrolled largely by Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz. Its most famous adherent, Sam Bankman-Fried, is in prison for fraud, and his $500 million stake in Anthropic, bought in 2022 with FTX customer funds, was liquidated in the exchange's bankruptcy. Anthropic grew up inside that world: Moskovitz and Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn funded its early rounds; Dario Amodei was an early signer of the movement's giving pledge; his sister and co-founder Daniela is married to Holden Karnofsky, the Open Philanthropy co-founder who joined Anthropic last year; and the trust with power over the company's board includes the CEO of the Centre for Effective Altruism.
Bores' new group grew out of a campaign funded by Amodei's network - which runs through effective altruism, a left-wing 'movement' that began with global poverty and animal welfare, preaches earning as much as possible in order to give it away, and over the past decade made preventing an AI catastrophe its central cause, bankrolled largely by Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz. The same network produced METR, the evaluator Amodei's essay names as his preferred watchdog. The movement's most famous adherent, Sam Bankman-Fried, is in prison for fraud, and his $500 million stake in Anthropic, bought in 2022 with what prosecutors said were FTX customer funds, was liquidated in the exchange's bankruptcy. Anthropic grew up inside that world: Moskovitz and Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn funded its early rounds; Dario Amodei was an early signer of the movement's giving pledge; his sister and co-founder Daniela is married to Holden Karnofsky, the Open Philanthropy co-founder who joined Anthropic last year; and the trust with power over the company's board includes the CEO of the Centre for Effective Altruism.
The same network reached Bores. Anthropic's $20 million gift to Public First Action, which backed him, sits alongside $401,250 that Anthropic employees gave to campaigns supporting him. Who Decides' pledge bans frontier-lab executives and corporate money - but doesn't bar the philanthropies that fund the AI-safety field. The group won't say who supplied the $10 million it has reportedly raised. The movement has tried electoral politics before: in 2022, Bankman-Fried's super PAC spent more than $10 million on Carrick Flynn's House primary in Oregon (which Flynn lost).
Who Decides, meanwhile, is calling for an AI agenda that a future Democratic president could act on during the first 100 days in office.
From A Congressional Defeat To A National Campaign
Bores made AI regulation a central issue in his congressional primary campaign after helping pass New York's RAISE Act. The legislation requires major frontier AI developers to publish safety plans and report critical safety incidents. Although he lost the primary, Bores and Myers describe the campaign as the foundation for their new organization.
"The lesson Bores and Myers took from those fights was that confronting the AI industry is fertile political ground and that public demand for answers on AI policy exists but remains scattered," the announcement states.
The organization says it will reject "corporate money or contributions from senior executives at frontier AI companies." Its website directs prospective donors to a Givebutter fundraising page.
The $30 million figure refers to the overall effort, rather than an established amount already raised. A New York Times report summarized by Techmeme says the nonprofit has raised $10 million and plans to seek another $20 million in 2027.
For Bores and Myers, the stated task is to turn separate concerns about AI into a coordinated political program.
"What's missing is a coalition capable of turning that energy into a governing consensus before the technology, the economic dislocation, and the partisan battle lines harden," the launch announcement says.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/22/2026 - 06:55
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
Opening Takes
“Real policy progress will be slow and fragmented, so the near-term market impact from this push will likely be muted or mispriced.”
This signals a concerted political mobilization around AI regulation, which could become a meaningful headwind if it yields binding safety standards. However, the scale and timing look uncertain: a $30 million campaign is modest vs the political money in play, and the plan hinges on cross-state coalitions with a long lead time to national policy. The real battleground will be Congress and the White House, not campaign rhetoric; 2028 dynamics and international competition (China) will complicate consensus. The article also blurs funding lines; philanthropic money will remain influential even if frontier-lab executives are barred. In short, this reads as theater that might not translate into policy fast enough to move markets today.
But the strongest counter: if this effort coheres into credible, widely accepted safety standards, it could reduce regulatory uncertainty and unlock more stable investment in AI safety infrastructure, which would be a tailwind for incumbents and long-duration tech bets.
“The 'Who Decides' initiative is a strategic attempt to turn AI safety into a regulatory moat that protects incumbent frontier labs from open-source and smaller-scale competition.”
The launch of 'Who Decides' represents a sophisticated attempt to institutionalize 'AI safety' as a wedge issue within the Democratic platform. While framed as populist, this is essentially a regulatory capture play disguised as grassroots activism. By aligning with the Effective Altruism (EA) ecosystem—which has deep ties to Anthropic—Bores is likely positioning for a 'moat-building' regulatory framework. By mandating expensive, independent testing and safety compliance, they effectively raise the barrier to entry for open-source competitors and smaller startups. Investors should view this as a strategic effort to consolidate the AI landscape under a handful of incumbent 'safe' labs, potentially suppressing the disruptive velocity of the broader tech sector.
The strongest counter-argument is that this is merely a political vanity project doomed to fail, as the urgency of global AI competition with China will eventually force any administration to prioritize performance and deployment speed over the 'safety' compliance costs favored by EA-aligned lobbyists.
“A political organization funded by the same network that backed a failed congressional candidate is now attempting to shape Democratic AI policy for 2028, raising $10M with unknown additional sources and explicitly welcoming money from the philanthropies that bankroll frontier AI safety research.”
This is a political coordination play disguised as grassroots activism, funded by the same effective-altruism network that backed Anthropic's $20M primary push for Bores—which failed. The $30M 'Who Decides' effort claims to reject corporate money but explicitly welcomes philanthropic funding from the same ecosystem (Moskovitz, Open Philanthropy). The real tell: Bores is now building a 50-state Democratic AI platform on the back of a network that has already lost one electoral bet (Bankman-Fried's $10M+ on Carrick Flynn in 2022). The group's stated goal—a unified Democratic AI agenda by 2028—could either legitimize industry-friendly 'safety' frameworks or genuinely constrain frontier labs. But the funding opacity and network overlap suggest this is regulatory capture dressed as consumer advocacy.
Bores' RAISE Act actually passed and set real precedent; this group could genuinely mobilize labor, civil-rights, and parent constituencies that have legitimate grievances about AI harms—not just EA ideology. Rejecting corporate money (even if philanthropies are EA-aligned) is materially different from Anthropic's direct PAC funding.
“Even with industry-tinged funding, the $30M effort raises the probability of binding U.S. oversight on frontier AI by 2029, pressuring multiples for labs dependent on rapid scaling.”
Bores' Who Decides group, backed by $10M already raised toward a $30M target and focused on 11 swing states, aims to lock Democrats into a shared AI safety platform by 2028 featuring mandatory safety plans, incident reporting, and independent testing. The effort draws from Anthropic's political network and effective altruism donors, yet explicitly bars direct corporate or executive money. This creates a credible channel for turning scattered public concerns into first-100-days executive action. Trump's counter-statement and China's non-participation raise the risk of fragmented global standards that could slow U.S. labs more than foreign competitors.
The group's Anthropic-linked funding and refusal of only direct corporate cash suggest it may ultimately advance the industry's preferred self-regulatory model rather than aggressive rules that would materially impair frontier-model valuations.
The Debate
Responding to Gemini
“Policy fragmentation from a 50-state push creates a dangerous patchwork that slows deployment and distorts AI safety funding more than a single federal standard.”
Gemini raises regulatory capture as a risk, but the bigger threat is policy fragmentation. A 50-state push with mandatory testing could yield a patchwork of standards, creating arbitrage opportunities and heavy compliance costs that slow deployment and distort funding choices for AI safety infra. If federal coherence never materializes, incumbents win but users lose, and safe-lab incentives could become a barrier to real innovation rather than a cure.
Responding to Claude
“The transition from EA-funded primary bets to populist consumer-harm coalitions creates a new, persistent litigation risk for frontier AI labs that markets are currently ignoring.”
Claude, you’re right about the EA funding, but you’re underestimating the 'RAISE Act' precedent. If Bores successfully pivots from failed primary spending to broad-based labor and parent coalitions, this isn't just regulatory capture—it’s a political liability for Big Tech. By shifting the narrative from 'existential risk' to 'consumer harm,' they force incumbents to defend against trial lawyers and state AGs, not just federal regulators. That creates a persistent, non-linear litigation risk that markets currently aren't pricing into frontier-lab valuations.
Responding to Gemini
“Regulatory fragmentation across jurisdictions incentivizes offshore relocation more than it constrains frontier labs domestically.”
Gemini's litigation-risk angle is underexplored, but it assumes labor/parent coalitions actually materialize—the article doesn't evidence that. More pressing: nobody's flagged the international arbitrage. If EU, UK, and U.S. each impose different testing regimes, frontier labs simply relocate compute or licensing to the loosest regime. Bores' 50-state push could accelerate that fragmentation, making domestic compliance costs a competitive disadvantage vs. offshore players. That's a bearish tail risk for U.S. incumbents, not a moat.
Responding to Claude
“Export controls and talent concentration prevent easy compute relocation, making fragmentation costs stickier for US labs.”
Claude's international arbitrage thesis overlooks export controls on advanced GPUs and CHIPS Act subsidies that anchor compute inside the US. Frontier labs shifting training to looser regimes would hit hardware shortages and talent attrition, not just higher domestic costs. Layering this on ChatGPT's 50-state patchwork makes compliance drag more binding for OpenAI and Anthropic than for offshore players.
Panel Verdict
BEARISH Consensus ReachedThe panel generally agrees that the 'Who Decides' campaign is a strategic attempt to influence AI regulation, potentially leading to regulatory capture and consolidation in the industry. They express concern about policy fragmentation, regulatory arbitrage, and litigation risks, with a bearish sentiment on the potential impact on AI incumbents and users.
None identified.
Policy fragmentation leading to heavy compliance costs and slowed deployment of AI safety measures.
Related News
This is not financial advice. Always do your own research.