Innovation Council Action Prepares $100M Midterm AI Spending Campaign

Innovation Council Action, a pro-AI group blessed by Trump AI adviser David Sacks, plans $100M to boost Trump's priorities in 2026 midterms.

Objective Facts

Innovation Council Action, blessed by tech mogul David Sacks, is led by former Trump White House deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich. The AI lobby is on course to be a colossal player in the 2026 elections — bankrolling allies who advocate for deregulation and punishing critics who support tighter rules. The AI industry has now committed more than $300 million to November's elections. Trump has advocated for a national AI regulatory standard and for expedited creation of AI infrastructure such as data centers, and has pushed to make the U.S. the dominant player in AI innovation ahead of China. The group has developed a scorecard ranking lawmakers based on their alignment with Trump's AI agenda.

Left-Leaning Perspective

Leading the Future was nominally bipartisan, with Democratic operative Josh Vlasto—who worked for Senator Chuck Schumer—hired to back candidates of both parties supporting a national framework for AI regulations. However, this did not go over well with the Trump White House, with a person familiar with Trump's thinking saying it's inexplicable why any company would put money behind a Schumer-operative working against President Trump to elect Democrats. Pro-AI groups attack Democrats like Alex Bores, who sponsored New York's RAISE Act, which requires AI companies with over $100 million in revenue to publish security protocols, disclose serious safety incidents, and ensure models do not create unreasonable risk of mass casualties or economic losses exceeding $1 billion. LTF ads accuse Bores of empowering dysfunctional bureaucrats to regulate AI, which would crush innovation and cost jobs. The $100 million lobbying blitz is not about innovation but about control—when corporations pour that kind of money into Washington, they are buying the rules themselves. Delay becomes domination, spectacle becomes distraction dressing up greed as competitiveness. Calls for stricter regulation are gaining traction across the political spectrum—recent polling indicates that a majority of Americans support stronger oversight of AI technologies, including segments of Trump's voter base.

Right-Leaning Perspective

The group is openly backing deregulation and prioritizing U.S. leadership in the technology race with China, supporting candidates who want fewer barriers to innovation, faster approval for data centers and a national approach to AI oversight—for Republicans who see regulation as a chokehold on competitiveness, this is the kind of strategic play that makes sense. Whoever writes the rules shapes the winners and losers in the next wave of economic growth. A fragmented regulatory landscape driven by state-level bans and divergent standards would only hand competitive advantage to China and slow American startups. Trump has made AI a cornerstone of his policy agenda, calling for a single federal regulatory framework instead of a patchwork of state laws, while pushing to accelerate development of infrastructure like data centers and strengthen U.S. competitiveness against China. The Trump administration understands that it was a light-touch regulatory environment, not 50 different confusing and conflicting regulatory regimes, that enabled the internet revolution and that innovation and investment in winning the AI future for America will require a similar approach. Right-leaning coverage frames the group's spending as essential to national security. Supporters of a unified federal approach, including Sacks, argue that fragmented state-level laws could hinder innovation and weaken the United States' competitive position, particularly against China. This approach has been embraced by many congressional Republicans as a starting point for legislative action and a signal toward a unified national strategy.

Deep Dive

The Innovation Council Action announcement crystallizes a fundamental tension in American AI policy: whether to pursue a unified federal framework that preempts state regulation, or allow states to establish diverse safeguards. Both sides agree fragmentation exists, but disagree sharply on its consequences. The right argues that 50 different state regimes create compliance chaos that slows American AI development relative to less-regulated competitors like China. The left argues that state experimentation has produced meaningful consumer protections (child safety, transparency, algorithmic bias prevention) that federal deregulation would eliminate without clear competitive benefit. The scale of spending—$300 million industry-wide, with Innovation Council alone outpacing previous single-PAC records—signals both how much is at stake and how seriously the industry treats regulatory risk. What makes this moment distinct is that the spending is explicitly tied to a federal preemption strategy. Unlike past tech lobbying, which fought regulation reactively, this spending aims to elect lawmakers who will affirmatively block state action and adopt a minimal federal framework. The lawmaker scorecard approach mirrors crypto's 2024 playbook, treating AI regulation as a binary: support deregulation or face electoral consequences. Left critics argue this is unprecedented corporate capture; right defenders argue it is necessary counterweight to regulatory overreach. Two critical uncertainties remain unresolved. First, polling shows bipartisan voter support for AI safeguards—including among Trump voters—yet the spending targets pro-deregulation candidates exclusively. Second, state lawmakers in President Trump's own party are facing pushback from the White House over state AI laws, with Trump and his advisors arguing that various state laws are a burden to innovation. This suggests internal Republican tension that the election spending may not fully resolve. The success of Innovation Council Action will depend not just on candidate victories, but on whether Congress enacts preemption legislation and whether courts accept federal authority to displace state consumer protection frameworks already in effect.

OBJ SPEAKING

← Daily BriefAbout

Innovation Council Action Prepares $100M Midterm AI Spending Campaign

Innovation Council Action, a pro-AI group blessed by Trump AI adviser David Sacks, plans $100M to boost Trump's priorities in 2026 midterms.

Mar 29, 2026· Updated Mar 30, 2026
What's Going On

Innovation Council Action, blessed by tech mogul David Sacks, is led by former Trump White House deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich. The AI lobby is on course to be a colossal player in the 2026 elections — bankrolling allies who advocate for deregulation and punishing critics who support tighter rules. The AI industry has now committed more than $300 million to November's elections. Trump has advocated for a national AI regulatory standard and for expedited creation of AI infrastructure such as data centers, and has pushed to make the U.S. the dominant player in AI innovation ahead of China. The group has developed a scorecard ranking lawmakers based on their alignment with Trump's AI agenda.

Left says: The $100 million lobbying blitz by the AI industry is about control—corporations pouring money into Washington are buying the rules themselves. Groups advocating tighter oversight are mobilizing, with the Future of Life Institute launching an $8 million advertising campaign promoting pro-human AI policies.
Right says: The group is openly backing deregulation and prioritizing U.S. leadership in the technology race with China, supporting candidates who want fewer barriers to innovation and a national approach to AI oversight. A fragmented regulatory landscape driven by state-level bans and divergent standards would only hand competitive advantage to China and slow American startups.
✓ Common Ground
In the absence of federal action, states have been passing dozens of their own laws regulating AI, but state lawmakers—including those in President Trump's party—are facing pushback from the White House. Both sides acknowledge state-level regulation is proliferating and creating fragmentation.
Recent polling indicates that a majority of Americans support stronger oversight of AI technologies. Even some on the right acknowledge voter concern about AI safety exists.
Several voices across the political spectrum recognize AI policy will be a major issue in the 2026 midterms, warranting significant political investment from industry groups.
Objective Deep Dive

The Innovation Council Action announcement crystallizes a fundamental tension in American AI policy: whether to pursue a unified federal framework that preempts state regulation, or allow states to establish diverse safeguards. Both sides agree fragmentation exists, but disagree sharply on its consequences. The right argues that 50 different state regimes create compliance chaos that slows American AI development relative to less-regulated competitors like China. The left argues that state experimentation has produced meaningful consumer protections (child safety, transparency, algorithmic bias prevention) that federal deregulation would eliminate without clear competitive benefit.

The scale of spending—$300 million industry-wide, with Innovation Council alone outpacing previous single-PAC records—signals both how much is at stake and how seriously the industry treats regulatory risk. What makes this moment distinct is that the spending is explicitly tied to a federal preemption strategy. Unlike past tech lobbying, which fought regulation reactively, this spending aims to elect lawmakers who will affirmatively block state action and adopt a minimal federal framework. The lawmaker scorecard approach mirrors crypto's 2024 playbook, treating AI regulation as a binary: support deregulation or face electoral consequences. Left critics argue this is unprecedented corporate capture; right defenders argue it is necessary counterweight to regulatory overreach.

Two critical uncertainties remain unresolved. First, polling shows bipartisan voter support for AI safeguards—including among Trump voters—yet the spending targets pro-deregulation candidates exclusively. Second, state lawmakers in President Trump's own party are facing pushback from the White House over state AI laws, with Trump and his advisors arguing that various state laws are a burden to innovation. This suggests internal Republican tension that the election spending may not fully resolve. The success of Innovation Council Action will depend not just on candidate victories, but on whether Congress enacts preemption legislation and whether courts accept federal authority to displace state consumer protection frameworks already in effect.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning outlets use language of corruption and manipulation ("buying the rules," "purchase immunity") to describe corporate political spending. Right-leaning sources employ patriotic and competitive framing ("America will win," "cavalry," "dominance") to describe the same spending. Left emphasizes public opinion (voters want regulation) being ignored; right emphasizes the necessity of unified federal action to compete with China.

✕ Key Disagreements
Whether fragmented state regulation harms or helps innovation and American competitiveness
Left: States have created guidelines for child safety, requiring transparency from technology and ensuring whistleblower protections—legitimate consumer protections that don't necessarily harm innovation.
Right: A fragmented regulatory landscape driven by state-level bans and divergent standards would only hand competitive advantage to China and slow American startups.
Whether the spending represents legitimate political participation or corporate corruption
Left: When corporations pour money into Washington, they are buying the rules themselves. The AI industry knows regulation is coming and would rather purchase immunity than earn trust.
Right: For Republicans who see regulation as a chokehold on competitiveness, this strategic play makes sense. Innovation Council Action is betting voters and donors will back candidates promising a national playbook focused on speed and scale.
Whether state AI laws protect consumers or obstruct development
Left: State laws require AI companies to disclose serious safety incidents to the state attorney general and ensure models do not create unreasonable risk of mass casualties or economic losses exceeding $1 billion—necessary safeguards.
Right: State AI laws impose undue burdens. The Framework proposes Congress adopt legislation broadly preempting state AI laws deemed to impose undue burdens to establish a minimally burdensome national standard.
Whether the group should disclose its donors
Left: Because the organization is a nonprofit group, it's not required to disclose its donors—a dark money organization, in campaign parlance.
Right: Right-leaning sources do not emphasize concerns about dark money disclosure; they focus instead on the group's policy alignment with Trump's agenda.