Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts,

radio, news.

You've been following the money all

election season. Big picture, what makes

this midterm season different?

>> Well, there is more money than ever, and

that's true on a campaign level to

individual candidates. It's true on a

pack level, and it's true in this dark

money category as well. So far, federal

political action committees have brought

in more than $4.7 billion, according to

a Bloomberg analysis from May. Just the

top 50 mega donors have spent more

than$1.6 billion, according to a

Washington Post analysis of FEC filings

out this month. But there's also

hundreds of millions of dollars coming

from companies and industries that want

their interests represented in political

office.

There is a new corporate influence

playbook that is being honed in this

year's midterms. It was incited by

cryptos unprecedented spending in the

2024 midterm elections, especially

cutting edge industries like AI, sports

gambling. They saw the effectiveness of

crypto's playbook spending millions and

millions in favor of both Democrats and

Republicans. in order to elect friends

and oust enemies to their regulatory

agenda. And they said, "Okay, we're

going to try it out this cycle in 2026."

So, US companies have spent $517 million

on the 2026 US House and Senate races in

the last 15 months. Um, that exceeds the

record set um in 2024. But for

candidates on both sides of the aisle,

having powerful donors backing you

doesn't guarantee success.

>> The fact is that money has not proven to

be the definitive factor in winning an

election.

>> And already in some primaries, big

spending is backfiring. It's very clear

that candidates are benefiting from

attacks on their opponents that focus

on, you know, they are allied with

special interests, with corporate

interests, and they're not for the

people.

I'm Sarah Holder and this is the Big

Take from Bloomberg News. Today on the

show, how political spending is shaping

the US midterms. I'm joined by Bloomberg

corporate lobbying and influence

reporter Emily Bernbomb and wealth

reporter Amanda Gordon to talk about the

donors funding candidates behind the

scenes and what's at stake for

Republicans and Democrats.

Amanda, you've been tracking spending by

big individual donors in US midterm

races. How much money are we talking

about and how does it compare to

previous years?

>> In 2022 in the midterms, it was over a

billion uh donated by top dollars and

this year it is looking at 1.6 billion.

That's where we're at. So, we're far

ahead and we haven't even come in to

those last stretches. The fact is that

the money increases every cycle. There's

something a little bit inevitable about

it. You know, it's interesting because

some of those triedand-true donors like

Miriam Adlesen, Jeff Yas, Richard Uline,

Deborah Simon on the Democratic side,

private equity titans like Steve

Schwarzman and Mark Rowan and Paul

Singer who runs a hedge fund in New York

that they have been known as early

money. So we've seen their donations as

early as at the end of 2025 in the cycle

because that early money is very

valuable for signaling where the

interest is going to be. But at the same

time there are people who measured a

measure might be giving less. Ken

Griffin gave a huge amount over a

hundred million in one cycle and this

cycle it looks like it's going to be

less. So, uh, some Democrats are just

frustrated and they're most interested

in 2028. It's not that they don't want

the Democrats to win, but they feel that

there's enough money pouring in that

they're just on the sidelines waiting to

see what happens. And so, it'll be

interesting to see where that money

goes. And on the corporate donation

side, Emily, I want to talk about the

role that AI has played in these races

and and AI spending has played because

you've been tracking two political

action committees, both backed by

leading AI voices with different aims,

leading the future and public first

action. Emily, who's putting money

behind each of these packs, and how do

their goals differ and align? So leading

the future is backed primarily by AI

billionaires Mark Andre, Ben Horowitz

and OpenAI President Greg Brockman. So

its aim is to pass one federal standard

for regulating AI that is light touch,

businessfriendly, focused on allowing

the AI companies to continue to innovate

without excessive government

intervention. And the creation of that

pack then prompted the creation of an

opposing force that is also backed by AI

industry interests. So that is public

first started by AI safety advocates and

its biggest donors so far has been

anthropic one of the leading AI firms

that promotes statebystate regulation of

AI which allows for more intensive

standards set at the state level. So to

a lot of candidates,

they don't understand the difference

between these two super PACs. They say,

"Okay, basically both of them support AI

but have differing visions for how to

regulate it." Um,

>> and both of them are being supported by

companies and individuals, many of whom

have financial interests in AI becoming

a bigger part of society.

>> Exactly. I was really interested in the

dynamics in uh the Florida gubernatorial

race um where both super PACs spent in

favor of the leading Florida

gubernatorial candidate Byron Donald's.

Donald's was able to um give public

statements that hedged just enough. So

he said, "Yes, I believe that the

federal government should be in charge

of regulating AI, but because our

Congress is so dysfunctional, that

probably won't happen. So the states

should play a role. you can, you know,

read as much as you want into those

statements. And so, both claimed him as

an ally. Ultimately, Donald, who was

already the leading candidate, did win

the race last week. The other two

Republicans that he was running against

were much more aggressive in terms of

their visions for AI regulation,

supporting a moratorium on data center

construction, supporting um intense AI

safety guard rails. Byron Donald's was

the most business friendly candidate in

the race. So, I was talking to a

strategist who's aligned with leading

the future and they were saying um you

know in many ways the other candidates

in this Republican primary are more

aligned with the sort of AI safety

worldview but public first is a savvy

political operation and they wanted to

get behind the guy who was going to win.

The crypto industry had its own playbook

and its own spending strategy during the

last election. Is the AI industry using

a similar playbook? Yes, it's a very

similar playbook and it's it's

structured almost exactly the same in

both instances. There's a primary super

PAC and a dark money group that funnel

money into a Republican super PAC and a

Democratic super PAC. So that was

pioneered by the the crypto industry. So

they spend in favor of candidates on

both sides of the aisle without ever

mentioning the issue that they really

care about. They rarely ever mention AI

just like crypto rarely ever mentioned

crypto because to the average voter

those are not the top issues that they

are thinking about.

>> And we'll get into sort of how effective

this money has been in shaping key races

in a moment. But stepping back for a

second, what exactly is this money

paying for?

>> For the most part, it is showing up in

television advertising and digital

streaming advertising. That remains the

primary way that super PACs spend. So,

it's really important to understand

super PACs cannot give money directly to

candidates. They can only spend on their

behalf. So they are spending on TV ads,

mailers going directly to people's

homes, calls to their cell phone and to

whatever landlines are left. So for the

most part, it's advertising. That's

still the name of the game when it comes

to campaigning.

Coming up, where candidates backed by

big money are losing and what it says

about corporate influence in the

midterms and beyond.

Amanda, Emily, I want to talk about some

of the consequential primary races that

have already happened where these donors

played a role. Where have you seen the

most tangible evidence that big money

was a factor in swaying the race?

>> The race that comes to mind for me is

New York 12. Um, so that's where New

York State Assemblyman Alex Bores ran on

a pro- AI regulation platform. So he

helped to write uh New York's AI safety

legislation and in that time he made

himself an enemy of firms like Andre and

Horowits which advocate for light touch

regulation. So when Leading the Future

announced that they would spend against

Borez, they accidentally incited this

huge wave of money from AI safety

advocates. Leading the Future ultimately

spent $8 million against Borez, tying

him to things that are unpopular with

Democrats like uh immigration

enforcement. But on the other side,

ProAI safety super PACs end up spending

over 21 million in favor of Bores in

that race. Overall, it showed

>> Borz lost.

>> Bores ended up losing like have the

groups taken lessons from how that race

played out?

>> Yes. Bores lost to the man who was

always favored to win, Micah Lasher, who

is New York political veteran

essentially. And I think the lessons

learned are you can attract a lot of

cash if you run on AI safety. That

doesn't mean that you're going to win,

but it does mean that um there's

probably more votes in the AI safety

camp than the pro AI camp at this point.

And I think an overall trend of this

race is money doesn't necessarily buy

you a seat. So we also saw that with um

Haley Stevens in Michigan, another

special interest group. Apac's super

PAC, United Democracy Project spent over

$30 million. the biggest investments of

the race in favor of Haley Stevens in

the Democratic primary over Abdul Elsed

and ultimately that 30 million and

another 30 million spent in favor of

Stevens by outside interests did not win

the day. Elsaded won that primary. It

was very close, but there is this

growing backlash to outside spending in

races. is voters don't like how it feels

when corporations come into their

district and try to dictate who wins

based on issues that they don't really

care about. the race in Michigan, that

$30 million that Apac put behind Haley

Stevens, which is the most Apac has ever

spent on a single candidate according to

the Associated Press, that became a big

selling point for Abdul Elsad or a big

talking point for Elsa that his opponent

was being supported by this pro-Israel

political action group. What does that

say about, you know, Apac's influence

right now and also the way that talking

about corporate influence um has been

playing out in races this year? There

has been a breakup between Democrats and

Apac um you know, mostly in light of

Israel's response to the events of

October 7th, 2023. So, you know, you

contract popular sentiment has uh soured

on Israel and along with that there has

been an increasing skepticism of Apac

and its role in politics and whenever

Apac's super PAC decides to spend in a

race um it's almost guaranteed that the

opponent will use that as an attack line

against the person who is receiving that

support.

Another really interesting race was in

Florida. Last Tuesday, the Democratic

Socialist Angie Nixon won a primary for

the Senate race in Florida. She was

outspent 16 to1. Bloomberg reported that

she didn't run a single TV ad. She only

spent about $50,000 on digital ads, but

she still won. Is this another example

where spending did not win the day? or

does this just say more about Nixon's

strength as a candidate and the

resonance of Democratic socialist

messaging with voters? Right now,

>> the consensus I'm hearing from political

consultants is money matters, but it

doesn't buy you a seat. There's still

something to be said about what voters

in your district want, care about, how

they respond to you as a candidate. Um,

and I think that that is a really

interesting counterintuitive trend that

we are seeing come from the midterm

elections. But in some districts,

outside spending has helped candidates

win handily. And that's often when they

already had an edge. There are people

who who attract the big traditional pots

of money but their but their message is

is distinctly sort of they stand on

their own. They stand for the people as

I guess all politicians on some level

you know have to make this argument that

they are distinct and independent of the

money that's that's coming to them. I I

think we do see on the Democratic side,

people are really starting to crave that

sort of lightning in a bottle. A lot of

donors are talking to me about how

Clinton appeared on the scene and the

energy that that he attracted

>> and Obama. Yes, Bill Clinton. And

they're looking for um they're looking

for candidates like that and they want

it to be not about money. um you cannot

buy it. Uh you can try to groom it and

probably there are candidates being

groomed right now with uh some big

checks uh supporting that behind the

scenes. We might only see the real

fruits of this money, not in this

election, but you know, a few elections

from now when some of that work that's

being done comes to bear. Yeah, it seems

like one of the takeaways here that

Emily has helped us draw out is that

sometimes this money can backfire if

it's backing the wrong candidate and if

it's backing the right candidate who

already has um the energy of the

electorate behind them. Um it can make a

real difference. And just to give an

example of how really committed donors

can engage, I've heard a few stories of

people from New York going out to

Michigan in advance of the primary and

attending rallies for both Elsai and for

Stevens because they wanted to be in the

room and see what the energy was. And my

last question, you know, the big

elephant in the room here is that while

there's a lot that we do know about who

and what companies are spending on

elections and how much they're putting

behind candidates, there's also a lot of

dark money spending that is a lot harder

to track. How much is still obscured

about who is driving political donations

in the US? And as we head towards the

general where that $ 1.6 6 billion in

individual donations might only

increase. Are there any efforts to

increase transparency?

>> There definitely calls to increase

transparency and there are some people

who would like to not see any money um

being being donated because it obscures

how a candidate relates to people. The

fact is that it's very unlikely that

that would happen. One of the

counterbalances

that has been

advocated for and instituted and we did

see it work in Mam Donny's favor in New

York City's mayoral election is public

financing matching public funds so that

the

>> smaller dollar donations have more of an

impact um and and have more of a chance

to back candidates.

>> Exactly.

>> Who don't necessarily have that

corporate support. Yeah, dark money is

playing a huge role in this year's

midterms. I think that's a source of

enormous consternation, frustration,

um, and, uh, especially as corporate

interests become less and less popular

in campaign spending. It means that

special interests are probably going to

go further and further underground to

hide their spending, putting money into

dark money groups that don't have to

disclose where their funding comes from.

We are going to know less than ever

probably by the next election.

That's an an interesting outcome of

voters being more and more skeptical of

corporate donors. Um, corporate donors

will just go deeper underground.

>> Yes, exactly. And they're, you know,

it's perfectly legal for them to do it.

>> This is The Big Take from Bloomberg

News. I'm Sarah Holder. To get more from

the Big Take and unlimited access to all

of Bloomberg.com, subscribe today at

bloomberg.com/mpodcast

offer. If you like this episode, make

sure to follow and review the Big Take

wherever you listen to podcasts. It

helps people find the show. Thanks for

listening. We'll be back tomorrow.