I have done more than my due diligence to expose the cadre of dark-side anti-AI influence surrounding the data center debate. What I have yet to do, and am rectifying today, is talk about the people and money on the pro-AI side. It is only fair that you know who is paying for the positive messaging so you can judge it as well.
For the record. No one is paying me to take a side; I did that on my own and remain pro-AI data center, but to be clear, the pro-AI side is paying influencers and experts as well. A tactic that isn’t illegal but could lead to efforts to impose draconian speech regulations in its wake.
The “pro-AI” funding side. This is newer, bigger, and more nakedly political. A super PAC called Leading the Future raised $125 million in 2025, backed by Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, Ron Conway, and Perplexity, with the goal of backing candidates who support national AI regulations rather than state-by-state rules.
It runs a network including the Republican-oriented American Mission PAC, the Democratic-oriented Think Big PAC, and an advocacy arm called Build American AI. The influencer angle is documented: a WIRED investigation found that Build American AI, tied to the super PAC, was paying TikTokers up to $5,000 per video to push anti-China, pro-AI talking points — with instructions not to tag or disclose who was paying.
Their goal is concrete: kill state-level AI regulation, secure a light-touch federal framework, and win the 2026 midterms, where AI is shaping up to be a key issue and industry groups are spending heavily to counter public concerns about data centers, energy use, and job displacement.
It’s lobbying and advertising via the reach of existing internet ‘personalities.’ Not new, but as I’ve mentioned more than once, the issue is disclosure. I have a problem with someone asking that you not disclose funding or sources.
I link or cite sources and content even when I don’t need to. You deserve to know where I saw it if it wasn’t something that occurred to me.
If someone tries to pay me I’ll let you know. As for the alleged priorities of the Pro-AI people, I oppose any plan to federalize regulations. While I disagree with the chicken-littles selling the water and power lies, the market will cite infrastructure where it’s wanted. The other reason is that federal rulemaking could be used to undermine local interests.
The government is already tangled up in things it should not, so let’s not invite them to get their meddlesome hands on this.
Keep it local. Let locals thrive or suffer, whichever way they choose. And leave the speech alone.
Exposing people who hide that they were paid for an opinion is a market force in itself. If you need an example or want to see it in action, look at the shift in media. The talking heads in the progressive media are paid advocates, and no one trusts them.
One more point. The pro-AI money doesn’t appear to be technically outside. These are mostly insiders leveraging outside vehicles to promote their business model. It’s not exactly the same as the CCP using Singham and others to launder money into third-party groups, so disclosure is the issue.
My exit question is: who will use that as an excuse to suppress otherwise protected speech first?
