New York City's 12th Congressional District was supposed to host a standard, heavily localized Democratic primary to replace retiring Representative Jerry Nadler. Instead, it has mutated into the most expensive proxy war in the history of tech politics. Over $20 million in outside money has flooded the race, turning a Manhattan contest into a brutal referendum on the future of artificial intelligence.
The battle lines are drawn almost entirely around one candidate. Alex Bores, a 35-year-old state assemblyman and former software engineer, committed the ultimate sin in the eyes of Silicon Valley. He passed a state-level safety law. In response, a super PAC funded by executives from OpenAI, Andreessen Horowitz, and Palantir unleashed a massive attack campaign to destroy his political career. Meanwhile, rival firm Anthropic and cryptocurrency billionaires poured millions into defending him.
Standing on the sidelines of this corporate crossfire are Micah Lasher, a veteran political operative handpicked by Nadler, and Jack Schlossberg, the social-media-savvy grandson of John F. Kennedy. They are running traditional campaigns. But the real race is being fought in the shadows by tech titans who view NY-12 as the first decisive battle for regulatory control.
The Original Sin in Albany
Bores is not a typical politician. He holds a computer science degree. He worked at Palantir before resigning over moral objections to the company's contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He understands the mechanics of machine learning, which makes him inherently dangerous to an industry accustomed to lecturing technologically illiterate lawmakers.
Last year, Bores authored and sponsored the RAISE Act in the New York State Assembly. The legislation requires major developers to publish public safety plans outlining safeguards against catastrophic risks. The law specifically targets nightmare scenarios, such as autonomous systems engineering novel viruses or compromising critical infrastructure.
Silicon Valley despises the RAISE Act. Not because the safety requirements are particularly draconian, but because they exist at the state level.
The tech industry's worst fear is a fractured map of fifty different state regulations. They want a single, preemptive federal framework. Preferably one they write themselves. Bores proved that states do not have to wait for a paralyzed Congress to act. By forcing the legislation into law, he set a precedent that terrifies the boardrooms of San Francisco.
The retribution was swift.
The War Chest of Leading the Future
Leading the Future sounds like a generic political action committee. It is actually a precision weapon. The bipartisan network of super PACs was created specifically to back candidates who align with the industry's preferred, light-touch regulatory vision.
The group boasts a $75 million war chest. The vast majority of that money comes from just four donors. Venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz. OpenAI president Greg Brockman and his wife, Anna. Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale.
This is the vanguard of the current tech boom, and they are spending upwards of $8 million in a single Manhattan district to ensure Bores never reaches Washington.
The strategy is simple and devastating. Drown the airwaves. Choke the mailboxes. Flood voter cell phones with text messages painting Bores as an extremist who will hand the global technology race over to China. The attack ads rarely mention the nuances of algorithm safety or the specific provisions of his legislation. They focus purely on fear. They frame regulation as a direct threat to American supremacy.
The assault on Bores is not just about stopping one man. It is a calculated warning shot to every ambitious state legislator in the country. The message is unmistakable. If you try to regulate this technology, we will bury you in negative advertising until your polling numbers collapse.
The Anthropic Counteroffensive
Every war needs two sides. As Leading the Future attempted to crush Bores, a massive counter-force emerged.
Anthropic, the primary rival to OpenAI, positions itself as the responsible adult in the room. They market their models as safer, more transparent, and built with constitutional principles. Supporting a candidate who champions safety legislation aligns perfectly with their corporate brand.
It also provides an incredibly convenient way to kneecap their biggest competitor.
A super PAC linked to Anthropic executives began spending heavily to defend Bores. They were joined by Chris Larsen, a cryptocurrency billionaire who funneled $3.5 million into boosting the assemblyman. Suddenly, Bores was the beneficiary of an equal and opposite tidal wave of tech money.
The situation is laced with brutal irony. Bores, who campaigns on his record of standing up to Big Tech, is currently surviving because a different faction of Big Tech decided he was a useful asset in their corporate feud. His opponents have noticed.
The Opponents Looking On
While the billionaires burn through millions, the rest of the field is trying to run a recognizable campaign.
Micah Lasher is the quintessential New York political survivor. At 44, he has managed campaigns, served as a top aide to Jerry Nadler, and worked in the upper echelons of state government. He recently led the fight to allow New York to redraw its congressional lines in response to mid-decade redistricting in Texas. He authored legislation prohibiting warrantless arrests by ICE agents in certain locations. These are the gritty, necessary legislative battles that actually affect New Yorkers' daily lives.
Instead, he finds himself standing on debate stages answering questions about OpenAI.
Lasher has weaponized the outside spending against Bores. During a televised debate on PIX11, he pointed directly at his rival. He noted that Bores is backed by Anthropic and a crypto billionaire, challenging the narrative that Bores is an independent crusader. Lasher accurately diagnosed the situation as a massive fraud perpetrated on the voters, where corporate interests buy influence under the guise of civic engagement.
The financial data supports Lasher's argument. An analysis of campaign filings reveals a stark contrast in donor bases. A staggering 68 percent of Lasher's donations came from within Manhattan. By contrast, only 12 percent of Bores' donations came from the district. California was his top donor state, supplying nearly a million dollars to his campaign.
Then there is Jack Schlossberg. At 33, he brings the Kennedy mystique and an Instagram following of nearly 900,000. He branded himself "No PAC Jack," refusing corporate money and funding his campaign through individual donations, celebrity checks from the likes of Lorne Michaels and Bette Midler, and a $1 million personal loan.
Schlossberg is playing the role of the generational disruptor. He attacks the establishment consensus on foreign policy, specifically regarding military aid to Israel, and uses his social media presence to bypass traditional media channels. Like Lasher, he has zeroed in on Bores' financial backing, arguing that any candidate propped up by millions in tech money will inevitably owe them a massive favor in Washington.
Rounding out the major candidates is George Conway, the former Republican and relentless antagonist of Donald Trump. Conway spends his time trying to pivot every conversation back to the existential threat posed by the former president. This creates a bizarre dynamic where local New York issues, algorithm policy, and national constitutional crises collide on the exact same debate stage.
The Reality on the Ground
The 12th Congressional District encompasses the Upper West Side and Upper East Side of Manhattan. It is home to some of the most highly educated, politically engaged, and wealthy voters in the country. These are people who read the fine print.
They are also completely overwhelmed.
Residents report receiving a dozen mailers a day. Their televisions show back-to-back commercials featuring ominous voiceovers about Chinese tech supremacy alternating with ads praising Bores as a visionary protector.
The disconnect between the localized concerns of the voters and the massive influx of West Coast cash is jarring. When Lasher walks into a diner on the West Side, voters want to talk about subway safety, housing costs, and the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The candidates hold nuanced, heavily scrutinized positions on the Leahy laws and military aid. Schlossberg, for instance, has delivered sharp criticism of military conduct, while Lasher and Bores navigate a more cautious approach to international human rights legislation.
Yet, the air war dominating the district is almost entirely funded by men in California who only care about one line of code in the New York state registry.
The race has exposed a fatal flaw in the modern campaign finance system. A local election can be completely hijacked by a single issue if a few billionaires decide it matters to their bottom line.
A Bitter Blueprint
Regardless of who wins the primary, the tech industry's strategy has permanently altered the political ecosystem.
For decades, technology companies preferred soft power. They hosted dinners, funded think tanks, and dispatched armies of friendly lobbyists to explain why the internet should remain unregulated. They wanted to be liked.
That era is dead. The $20 million spent in NY-12 marks the beginning of a militarized approach to tech lobbying. Leading the Future is not trying to educate lawmakers. They are trying to eradicate them.
If Lasher or Schlossberg edges out a victory, OpenAI and Andreessen Horowitz will view their massive investment as a resounding success. They will have successfully assassinated the author of the RAISE Act, proving that their money can flip a crucial primary. State legislators from Sacramento to Albany will take note. The appetite for passing local safety laws will evaporate overnight.
If Bores wins, the calculus flips entirely. He will enter Congress as the man who survived a coordinated hit from the wealthiest men in tech. He will have undeniable proof that powerful interests are terrified of him. More importantly, he will become the de facto authority on technology regulation within the Democratic caucus. Every piece of federal legislation on the topic will have to go through him.
Bores argues that the massive spending against him is the ultimate validation of his work. He claims the industry is terrified of someone who actually understands their business models. He might be right. But his reliance on Anthropic's money to survive the assault severely complicates the purity of his message.
The Manhattan primary is no longer just an election to replace Jerry Nadler. It is a live-fire exercise for the future of American governance.
The industry knows that the next two years will determine the regulatory framework for the next century. Trillions of dollars are at stake. A $20 million expenditure in a single congressional district is not an anomaly. It is a rounding error. It is simply the cost of doing business.
The voters of the 12th District will head to the polls to choose between a seasoned local operative, a charismatic political scion, and a tech-savvy legislator. But their ballots are essentially rendering a verdict on a proxy war they never asked to host.
The billionaires funding this fight do not care about the Upper East Side. They do not care about Jerry Nadler's legacy. They care about establishing dominance over the lawmakers who will write the rules for the most powerful technology in human history. They have decided that if they cannot buy the regulators, they will simply buy the election that creates them.
This is exactly how the industry intends to operate from now on.
