AI's new political donor class is outspending Big Tech's last one

San Francisco is still waiting for the AI IPOs — the wave of money from Anthropic and OpenAI millionaires and billionaires that is likely to further supercharge the housing market , create a new philanthropic class, and put the city back in the global spotlight. But in politics, the AI money has already arrived. The first sign came last fall, when Anthropic and OpenAI employees gave in force to two congressional candidates who championed AI safety legislation. Twenty-eight of them — 20 from Anthropic and eight from OpenAI — gave Alex Bores, who was running for Congress in New York’s 12th district, a combined $173,000 in a single day. Twenty-four of those donors gave the maximum of $7,000. Two days later, 12 of those donors, plus five additional colleagues, donated to California state Sen. Scott Wiener, running for Nancy Pelosi’s long-held seat in Congress. This spring, AI money started appearing in state races. In the final two weeks of California’s tumultuous gubernatorial primary, 13 Anthropic and OpenAI employees gave Xavier Becerra the maximum allowable donation of $39,000, totaling just over half a million dollars. Around the same time, a handful of Anthropic employees maxed out to Rob Bonta, the incumbent attorney general. Becerra and Bonta both advanced to the general election and will face voters again in November. Even before these IPOs let employees sell their shares on the public markets, campaign filings show that AI-lab employees — endowed with top-tier salaries and tender offers for their equity — have already formed an influential political donor class. A lot of the money has gone to AI-safety candidates, as well as super PACs dedicated to the issue. But it is also going to incumbent regulators and more conventional recipients: all four GOP and Democratic congressional campaign committees, Democratic and Republican lawmakers, and more than two dozen California candidates and committees. To compare this new AI cohort with political donors from earlier tech blockbusters, I analyzed federal giving by employees of Anthropic and OpenAI during the current midterm cycle, through July 15, compared with Google, Facebook, and Airbnb in the first midterm election cycle after each company’s IPO — Google in 2005-06, Facebook in 2013-14, and Airbnb in 2021-22. (The federal figures include partial Q2 campaign finance reports filed July 15; filings incorporated later this month will likely push the Anthropic and OpenAI totals higher.) I also reviewed state and local filings through the end of 2025, plus pre-primary donations larger than $1,000 from 2026 , to understand where the new AI money is showing up in California and San Francisco. The findings: AI lab employees are giving at levels above those of Google, Facebook, or Airbnb employees in their first post-IPO midterm cycles, are donating significantly more money, are more coordinated in their giving, and are specifically concentrated in San Francisco. AI lab employees are more politically engaged Political giving used to be rare among (notoriously apolitical) tech workers, but it is much more widespread at AI companies, particularly Anthropic. Roughly 59 of every 1,000 Anthropic employees have donated to a federal campaign this cycle — almost triple the rate of Airbnb’s employees during their first post-IPO cycle, and five to six times that of Facebook and Google. OpenAI’s donor participation rate is lower but still above Google, Facebook, and Airbnb’s post-IPO cohorts. Recollections from tech employees in earlier eras back up the data. According to Adam Conner, Facebook’s first Washington, DC hire who ran the Politics, Government, and Elections Team, “There was not a lot of attention or interest in politics from either the leadership or the rank and file employees in the early days. Tech was not a controversial issue, or a key political issue at the time, the way AI is now.” The donation rate reveals whether political giving is constrained to a few wealthy executives or diffused through the company. At Anthropic, political giving looks like a cultural phenomenon, with an engaged base well beyond the founders. This doesn’t surprise a donor adviser who works with high-net-worth AI employees. Many early Anthropic employees have deep roots in “effective altruism,” a movement that encourages giving away a significant share of personal wealth. “There are very high community norms for a very high percentage of net-worth giving,” the adviser said. The donation totals are staggering The intensity of giving, measured in raw dollars and maxed-out donations, is even more striking. Nearly 4 in 10 of Anthropic’s donors, 39%, have given the legal maximum to at least one campaign — more than double the percentage for Airbnb in the equivalent time frame. And many aren’t stopping there: Thirty-nine Anthropic donors have maxed out to at least two candidates, and more than a dozen have maxed out to five or more. Adjusted for inflation, Anthropic employees are outgiving their prior tech counterparts more than threefold. Even excluding OpenAI President Greg Brockman’s two mega-donations of $12.5 million apiece to Leading the Future, an anti-regulatory super PAC, and MAGA inc, President Donald Trump’s super PAC, OpenAI employees have surpassed giving from Google and Airbnb employees in the midterm cycle of their respective IPOs — still several months out from the general election. (Brockman’s support of Leading the Future has seemingly generated backlash from other OpenAI employees, who recently gave more than $215,000 to a rival super PAC dedicated to AI safety.) Donors are coordinating to maximize impact The donations to Bores and Wiener in October were notable not just for their number but for their synchronization. In the post-IPO cycles I analyzed for Google, Facebook, and Airbnb, no candidate received same-day donations from more than five employees. By contrast, 20 Anthropic employees gave to Bores on a single day in October, along with eight of their OpenAI counterparts. Two days later, 12 more gave to Wiener. The likely catalyst: Blog posts on lesswrong.com , an online forum favored by AI researchers and effective altruists, encouraging donations to both candidates based on their AI safety positions. The second post directed readers to use a specific ActBlue link rather than Wiener’s campaign website, explaining that doing so would “let him know” the donation came from someone who cared about AI safety. There’s notable political value in donor coordination. A burst of donations signals an organized constituency — one that can be mobilized for future campaigns and policy fights. That kind of coordination can translate into access and influence when policy gets made. “It’s savvy, really smart for them to be giving as early as possible to build those relationships,” said a senior Democratic strategist and campaign consultant. For the labs’ employees, that access fills a vacuum, the strategist suggested: “Look at the average age of Congress. People that are writing legislation do not understand AI. So when you establish a relationship, it’s an opportunity to help educate these legislators.” In practice, this means the AI labs’ employees are well positioned to shape their own industry’s regulation. A donor class anchored in San Francisco With the exception of Wiener’s campaign for Pelosi’s San Francisco seat, most of these federal donations flowed to super PACs and individual races San Franciscans will never vote in. The donor base behind that money, however, is particularly local. Some 59% of Anthropic employees and 42% of OpenAI employees who gave to federal candidates this cycle listed a San Francisco residence, compared with 34% of Airbnb donors in its first post-IPO cycle, 18% for Google, and 14% for Facebook. To some extent, this is expected; Google and Facebook were founded on the Peninsula. But this concentration matters in municipal races, where local donors can wield significant influence. San Francisco’s campaign rules cap contributions to city races at $500 (a limit that could double if the Board of Supervisors approves a pending proposal before November). But supervisor candidates can receive a 6-to-1 public match on the first $150 of eligible contributions. And, of course, motivated donors can give an unlimited amount to independent expenditure committees, or self-fund campaigns like those of Daniel Lurie or Saikat Chakrabarti. The record-breaking $28 million spent in the 2024 mayoral race showed how much money San Francisco politics can absorb when wealthy donors and independent committees converge. Where might AI money be headed locally? So far, the totals are small, and donations have clustered in supervisor races: the June special elections in Districts 2 and 4, along with Manny Yekutiel’s campaign for the District 8 race in November. In particular, Yekutiel and Stephen Sherrill, who in June successfully defended his seat as District 2 supervisor, have drawn early support from San Francisco tech circles, indicating that the AI donor class is aligned with the city’s moderate, YIMBY factions. Campaigns will disclose their complete fundraising totals for the first half of 2026 on July 31, offering a sharper picture of whether this coalition persists. November is just the beginning No tech company in a prior boom era entered its first political cycle with a donor class this mature. Anthropic and OpenAI employees are already highly engaged in elections around the country, and the same donor networks that sent half a million dollars to California races in two weeks have yet to turn their full attention to San Francisco elections. November will show how the federal and state-level donor network translates into local influence. Anthropic and OpenAI employees are laying the groundwork for enduring political power. Their PACs, fundraiser invitation lists, and relationships to candidates for office in Washington, Sacramento, and City Hall will persist beyond this election cycle. If history is a guide, this is just the first inning in a decades-long game of political influence. Mark Zuckerberg’s first recorded political check was $25,000 for a San Francisco housing bond; eight years after the Facebook IPO, he spent $400 million on election administration . Sergey Brin is spending tens of millions of dollars on ballot measures this year , more than two decades after Google went public. The AI donor class is just getting started. Alexandra Lindsay is the author of Machine Politics , a newsletter dedicated to the politics and policy of artificial intelligence.