Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Financial Times says that Democratic strategists are warning our candidates not to antagonize pro-AI groups [View all]
Found out about this FT article
Big Tech’s $300mn election war chest rattles Democrats
https://www.ft.com/content/7529e4cd-e336-4b75-917b-84f91bc48437?syn-25a6b1a6=1
via this article from Futurism:
Democrats Warned Not to Upset Multi-Million Dollar AI Lobbyists, Even Though It’d Be a Slam Dunk With Voters
https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/democrats-ai-voters
The text Futurism put above its headline labels this "political malpractice" - and I agree.
From Futurism:
Fast forward to 2026, and it’s clear the party remains a poor student of its own failures. According to the Financial Times, Democrats running in the 2026 midterm elections have been advised by party strategists not to antagonize pro-AI interests, even as polls show AI regulation is incredibly popular with voters.
Specifically, the Democratic establishment is telling politicians to play nice with any “pro-AI group” with over $300 million to toss around, evidently in an effort to court that money for the political machine. So far, only a small handful of progressive Democrats have made AI regulation a key part of their platform, as the majority of party functionaries bite their tongues.
“You are definitely seeing a chilling effect [on campaigns],” Alex Jacquez, former White House advisor and head of policy at Groundwork Collaborative told the FT. “There’s just not a lot of upside in the potential of getting $20mn [spent by pro-AI campaign groups] in your race… in a lot of cases it is going to be easier to say nothing.”
-snip-
With small towns now pushing back against AI data centers en masse, the appeal clearly stretches far beyond the Democrats’ typical base. Opposition to big tech has never had a broader constituency, if only politicians would be willing to take a stand.
Specifically, the Democratic establishment is telling politicians to play nice with any “pro-AI group” with over $300 million to toss around, evidently in an effort to court that money for the political machine. So far, only a small handful of progressive Democrats have made AI regulation a key part of their platform, as the majority of party functionaries bite their tongues.
“You are definitely seeing a chilling effect [on campaigns],” Alex Jacquez, former White House advisor and head of policy at Groundwork Collaborative told the FT. “There’s just not a lot of upside in the potential of getting $20mn [spent by pro-AI campaign groups] in your race… in a lot of cases it is going to be easier to say nothing.”
-snip-
With small towns now pushing back against AI data centers en masse, the appeal clearly stretches far beyond the Democrats’ typical base. Opposition to big tech has never had a broader constituency, if only politicians would be willing to take a stand.
If Dems think just keeping silent about AI will help them, like prey freezing in the hope predators will overlook them, they're kidding themselves.
The Financial Times doesn't identify most of their sources by name. They refer to "warnings by top party consultants, corroborated by people close to four different campaigns and party strategists speaking on the condition of anonymity" despite internal polling showing voters want tougher regulation.
The FT points out that the pro-AI groups include many of the same people behind the pro-crypto groups that helped defeat Sherrod Brown.
But pro-AI groups have had a mixed record in recent elections.
And the article mentions that pro-regulation PAC Jobs and Democracy, funded by Anthropic, helped North Carolina Dem Valerie Foushee win her primary.
Anthropic just told the PAC it funds that its contributions can't be used to directly influence elections, though - a change that I suspect (though FT doesn't suggest) is a concession to the Trump regime.
FT does quote strategists who thinks Dems should run against the AI industry. And they mention AOC pledging not to take money from the AI industry and urging other candidates to do the same.
But this article suggests the Democratic establishment will try to appeal to the AI industry, citing the pro-business moderates Hakeem Jeffries appointed as co-chairs of the House Democratic Commission on AI.
11 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read