The intersection of high-stakes political maneuvering and emerging technology has created a new frontier in Washington, one where traditional partisan divides are being erased in favor of industry dominance. Desiree Sainthrope, a seasoned legal expert with a profound background in trade agreements and global compliance, joins us to break down the aggressive strategies of the pro-AI lobby. With her extensive experience navigating the labyrinth of intellectual property and the complex legal implications of artificial intelligence, Sainthrope provides a unique lens into how political veterans from opposite camps are merging their playbooks to secure a trillion-dollar future. In this discussion, we explore the rise of “Leading the Future,” the high-stakes financial battles in congressional primaries, and the philosophical war being waged between industry titans and “AI safety” advocates.
The interview explores the collaborative efforts of veteran strategists Josh Vlasto and Josh Moffatt as they bridge the gap between Democratic and Republican camps to shape a unified pro-AI policy. We delve into the “David vs. Goliath” narrative they have constructed, the aggressive financial tactics used in races like New York’s 12th Congressional District, and the broader goal of marginalizing “doomer” skeptics while navigating a landscape where only one in five Americans trust Big Tech.
With veteran strategists from traditionally opposing political camps now working together, how is this bipartisan alliance specifically designed to overcome the gridlock that usually stalls emerging technology policy?
This alliance is a masterclass in pragmatic political engineering, blending the sharp-elbowed tactics of New York Democratic politics with the data-driven digital infrastructure of the modern Republican machine. Josh Vlasto, who cut his teeth in the high-pressure offices of Chuck Schumer and Andrew Cuomo—where he was once famously called an “incompetent asshole” in the heat of an Albany morning—brings a certain “ready for anything” resilience to the table. On the other side, Josh Moffatt, who built the conservative digital powerhouse Targeted Victory and was a key figure for Mitt Romney, understands how to mobilize resources in 19 different GOP primary races simultaneously. By combining these worldviews, they aren’t just trying to pass a single bill; they are building a permanent, bipartisan infrastructure that ensures AI innovation is the default setting for both parties. They’ve successfully moved past the partisan bickering of the mid-2000s to create a unified front that treats AI as a matter of national leadership rather than a political football.
The leadership at Leading the Future has framed their struggle as a “David vs. Goliath” battle against “doomers” and the AI safety movement. In your view, how does this narrative shift the focus away from the immense financial resources they actually command?
It is a fascinating psychological play to watch two of the most connected operatives in the country claim the underdog mantle while sitting on a mountain of industry cash. By painting the “AI safety” movement—which includes heavyweights like Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and various influential nonprofits—as a “diffuse universe” of well-funded resistance fighters, Vlasto and Moffatt are trying to deflect the backlash that comes with being the voice of Big Tech. They use the term “doomers” with a certain spite, framing advocates for regulation as a hulking, obstructionist ship that threatens to sink American progress. In reality, their “David” is armed with enough capital to spend over $8 million in a single Manhattan primary, a sum that would make most grassroots organizations weep. This narrative allows them to argue that they aren’t just lobbyists, but defenders of a fragile future against a “catastrophic risk” industry that they believe is actually trying to stifle competition.
The campaign against Alex Bores in New York’s 12th District was a watershed moment for the group, involving a massive $8.15 million expenditure. What does the sheer scale of this spending reveal about the lengths they are willing to go to to silence proponents of strict AI safety regulation?
The offensive against Alex Bores was designed to be a loud, unmistakable signal to every politician on Capitol Hill: embracing strict AI regulation comes with a devastating price tag. Spending $8.15 million to defeat a single candidate in an Upper West Side and Upper East Side primary—making it the second-most expensive House primary of all time—is less about the individual seat and more about the “try to destroy you” reputation the group is cultivating. One swing state Democratic strategist noted the chilling effect this had, as word circulated that the pro-AI forces wouldn’t just disagree with you, but would actively seek to end your political career. While some might call it a pyrrhic victory because it sparked “unwelcome chatter” and led companies like OpenAI to distance themselves from the PAC’s hardball tactics, the objective was achieved. Bores lost, and the message was delivered with the cold efficiency of a corporate takeover, proving that the group is willing to burn millions to ensure “AI safety” proponents don’t get a foothold in the legislature.
Given that Chris Lehane and the “Fairshake” crypto PAC served as the blueprint for this operation, how have they adapted those earlier strategies to fit the specific challenges of the AI industry?
The “Fairshake” playbook was essentially a proof-of-concept for how a well-funded, industry-specific PAC can decapitate its political opposition, as seen when they helped oust crypto opponents like Sherrod Brown in 2014. Leading the Future has taken that blueprint and refined it, moving away from being a single-issue bull in a china shop to a more nuanced, bipartisan operation that influences 11 Democratic and 19 Republican races. They’ve inherited the same fierce political DNA but are applying it to a technology that is far more central to the 2026 and 2028 elections than crypto ever was. Vlasto and Moffatt have moved beyond just ousting enemies; they are now using a sophisticated questionnaire and a subsidiary called Build American AI to hand-pick and nurture a stable of “pro-business, centrist” candidates. It’s an evolution from pure scorched-earth politics to a more sustainable model of “buying congressional reps,” as their critics might say, ensuring that the people entering the halls of power are already pre-vetted and aligned with their goals.
Leading the Future utilizes a specific questionnaire and a subsidiary called Build American AI to vet candidates. How does this formalization of influence change the way politicians approach tech legislation?
By funneling candidates through a 501(c)(4) subsidiary and requiring them to answer a specific questionnaire, the PAC has turned the legislative process into a pre-screening interview for financial support. The questions are deceptive in their simplicity—asking if a candidate wants America to “lead in AI” and “harness the benefits”—but they serve as a litmus test that filters out anyone who might prioritize safety over rapid development. Politicians, especially those in non-competitive primaries who are eager for backing, find themselves in a dialogue with the PAC’s team, essentially negotiating their future policy stances for an endorsement. This shifts the power dynamic; instead of lawmakers writing policy and lobbyists reacting to it, the PAC is shaping the debate before the candidate even arrives in Washington. It creates a class of representatives who are indebted to a specific industry worldview, making them far more likely to “work thoughtfully” on structures that prioritize market leadership over regulatory guardrails.
There was a notable friction when the Trump administration criticized the group for being run by “Schumer acolytes.” How do Moffatt and Vlasto navigate the intense partisan loyalties of the current political environment while trying to maintain a “team pro-AI” stance?
The tension with the Trump administration highlights the “landmines on all sides” that Vlasto and Moffatt must navigate daily. When a White House official anonymously attacked Vlasto as a “Schumer acolyte” who wouldn’t have the president’s blessing, it threatened to alienate the PAC’s top Republican donors who are also Trump allies. However, the duo’s response was a masterclass in political pragmatism; they shrugged off the insults and pivoted back to the fact that Moffatt—the global chair of communications for Stagwell by 2025—is one of the most influential conservative consultants in the country. They’ve managed to maintain a “good relationship” with the White House by focusing on the shared goal of American dominance in technology, which transcends individual personality clashes. By having a foot in both camps, they can tell the Republicans they are protecting the industry from “doomer” regulations and tell the Democrats they are fostering the next great American economic engine.
With public confidence in Big Tech at a historic low—only 1 in 5 Americans expressing a lot of confidence—how can this PAC hope to influence voters in the upcoming 2026 and 2028 elections?
Navigating a landscape where 80 percent of the population is skeptical of your industry requires a strategy that sidesteps the “Big Tech” label and focuses on the candidates themselves. Leading the Future avoids being a public-facing advocate for tech giants and instead functions as a silent engine behind centrist, pro-business candidates like Jesse Jackson Jr., where they spent $1.45 million in Illinois. They understand that while voters might not trust a tech CEO, they will trust a candidate who promises jobs, national security, and American leadership. By carefully selecting candidates who haven’t even taken a public position on AI yet, they can define the issue on their own terms before the “doomer” narrative takes hold in the public consciousness. Their goal is to make AI progress feel like an inevitable national priority, rather than a corporate agenda, effectively masking the industry’s hand while they shape the legislative landscape from the shadows.
What is your forecast for the future of AI regulation as these two political titans continue to reshape the landscape leading into the next major election cycles?
The forecast suggests a future where regulatory “guardrails” are increasingly designed by the very industry they are meant to govern, resulting in a framework that favors speed and market dominance over cautious safety testing. We are likely to see the marginalization of the “effective altruism” movement in Washington as more candidates, weary of the $8 million “Bores treatment,” opt for the centrist, pro-industry path laid out in the PAC’s questionnaires. By the 2028 election, the debate will likely have shifted from “should we regulate” to “how do we ensure American AI wins the global race,” effectively silencing the most vocal critics of catastrophic risk. The sheer financial gravity of the Vlasto-Moffatt alliance will pull both parties toward a consensus that treats AI safety as a secondary concern to commercial and geopolitical success. Ultimately, the “Goliath” in this scenario isn’t the regulation movement, but the unified, bipartisan political machine that is successfully retooling the American government to serve the interests of the AI elite.
