AI Industry Mobilizes Against Former Palantir Employee in Manhattan Congressional Race

A super PAC backed by OpenAI, Palantir, and Andreessen Horowitz executives has spent an estimated $2.4 million on attack ads targeting Alex Bores, a New York state assemblyman seeking the congressional seat being vacated by Rep. Jerry Nadler in Manhattan's 12th District. The sustained campaign against Bores, who authored some of the first AI regulatory legislation in the country, illustrates the technology industry's growing willingness to deploy political muscle against candidates with regulatory backgrounds.

Leading the Future, the super PAC orchestrating the attacks, draws funding from notable Silicon Valley figures including Joe Lonsdale, Marc Andreessen, and OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman. The group has been running attack ads against Bores since December 2025, well before the candidate placed his first ad buy in New York on May 11th.

The Candidate Under Fire

Bores brings an unusual combination of industry experience and regulatory advocacy to the race. The former Palantir employee, who holds computer science degrees from Cornell University and Georgia Institute of Technology, built a career in data science before winning election to the New York State Assembly in 2022. His professional background includes assisting the Department of Justice and Manhattan District attorneys on violent crime investigations, and developing software for local governments' COVID relief programs that helped 50,000 families maintain essential services.

As an assemblyman, Bores passed state regulations on large AI models, positioning himself as one of the few legislators with both technical expertise and regulatory experience in the artificial intelligence space. His regulatory work has made him a target for industry groups seeking to influence the congressional race that will determine Nadler's successor.

The attacks have focused particularly on Bores' Palantir tenure. Think Big PAC, which is affiliated with Leading the Future, spent $120,000 on a single December attack ad claiming Bores made hundreds of thousands of dollars building and selling technology for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Bores responded with a cease-and-desist letter, asserting he never worked on the ICE contract and had declined to include immigration work on a Department of Justice contract he did work on.

Financial Dynamics and Industry Influence

The NY-12 race has become a proxy battleground for competing AI industry interests. While Leading the Future targets Bores with attack ads, tech billionaire Chris Larsen and Anthropic employees have contributed a combined $4.59 million supporting his candidacy. This dynamic mirrors patterns established by crypto industry super PAC Fairshake, which successfully ousted Sen. Sherrod Brown and Rep. Katie Porter in the 2024 election cycle.

Leading the Future has pledged to spend $100 million across the midterm elections, making the NY-12 race a test case for the group's broader political strategy. The organization's sustained focus on a single assemblyman's congressional bid signals the technology industry's recognition that regulatory expertise at the federal level could significantly impact future AI governance.

Bores' fundraising profile reflects his appeal to technology professionals nationwide. According to FEC records, he has raised $2,864,904.03 in total individual contributions while declining PAC money. However, his donor geography has drawn scrutiny: only 12% of his campaign donations originate from NY-12, the district he seeks to represent, with more money raised from Berkeley, California, than from Manhattan itself. Only 25% of his donors live in New York state.

The Broader Political Landscape

The eight-candidate Democratic primary scheduled for June 23rd features several prominent figures beyond Bores. Micah Lasher, also a state assemblyman, has secured backing from Nadler's political machine and Mike Bloomberg's super PAC. An Emerson College poll shows Bores and Lasher in a statistical tie for the lead.

Other candidates include Jack Schlossberg, grandson of John F. Kennedy, and George Conway, ex-husband of former Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway. The diverse field reflects the high-profile nature of a Manhattan congressional seat, but the technology industry's focused opposition to Bores suggests his regulatory background has elevated him to particular significance in Silicon Valley's political calculations.

We have seen this pattern before, when emerging industries mobilize against candidates with relevant expertise. The pharmaceutical industry's political response to healthcare reformers and the financial sector's opposition to candidates with banking regulation experience follow similar dynamics. What distinguishes the current AI industry mobilization is the speed and scale of the response to relatively limited state-level regulatory activity.

The timing of the attacks against Bores—beginning months before he placed his first ad buy—suggests a strategic effort to define his candidacy before he could establish his own narrative with voters. This approach reflects sophisticated political operation planning, where early negative messaging aims to constrain a candidate's ability to gain traction with undecided voters.

Looking at what this means for AI governance, the NY-12 race serves as an early indicator of how technology companies plan to engage with the political process as artificial intelligence regulation becomes a federal priority. The industry's willingness to spend millions targeting a state assemblyman with limited federal regulatory authority suggests even more significant mobilization awaits candidates and incumbents with direct influence over national AI policy.

The June 23rd primary will determine whether sustained negative advertising can overcome a candidate's technical credentials and regulatory experience in a district where voters may value both industry expertise and oversight capability. The outcome will likely influence how technology companies approach political engagement in future election cycles, particularly as AI governance moves from state laboratories to federal implementation.