A Democratic primary contest in Colorado has become one of the state's most expensive political races, fuelled by significant financial contributions from prominent Silicon Valley figures. The substantial spending is drawing attention as it reflects an emerging ideological chasm among major technology donors regarding the future regulation of artificial intelligence (AI).
Democrat Manny Rutinel, a candidate for the competitive eighth congressional district in the US House, has seen his campaign receive at least $2 million from political action committees (PACs) primarily funded by tech industry leaders. Notable contributors include committees associated with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and crypto billionaire Chris Larsen. These funds have positioned Rutinel's campaign, which focuses on affordability and regulating US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), against his centrist opponent, former state representative Shannon Bird.
While AI has not been a central theme in Rutinel's public campaign, reports indicate he previously supported legislation aimed at implementing safeguards for AI during his tenure as a state representative. Conversely, his opponent, Shannon Bird, reportedly opposed an AI regulation bill, citing concerns it could hinder innovation. This difference in stance appears to align with the broader split observed among tech donors.
The two main Super PACs channelling tech money into Rutinel's campaign are Somos Pac and You Can Push Back. Axios reported that Schmidt and his wife, Wendy, contributed $2 million to Somos Pac, an organisation focused on Latino voter engagement, which then directed approximately $1.3 million to Rutinel's campaign. You Can Push Back, entirely funded by Chris Larsen, donated almost $1 million. Additionally, Rutinel's campaign has received over $265,000 from individual employees at leading AI and tech firms, including Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and Meta, with Anthropic employees being the largest group of individual givers.
This Colorado race serves as a compelling illustration of a growing division within the technology sector's political influence. One faction of wealthy tech donors is investing heavily in candidates perceived as open to stricter AI regulations, while another group is backing political hopefuls who advocate for less governmental oversight of the rapidly evolving technology. This pattern has been observed in other recent US congressional primaries, including New York, North Carolina, and California, where pro- and anti-AI groups collectively spent millions to support or oppose candidates based on their positions on AI policy.