Confirmed in a primary source 15 Sept 2026 Policy

The New York lawmaker who wrote the state's AI law launched a national group to set his party's position on AI.

Alex Bores, the New York State assemblymember behind the RAISE Act, and Anna Myers, his former chief of staff, launched Who Decides on September 15, an organisation that says it will work in eleven early-primary and swing states, run quarterly polling, put AI questions into candidate questionnaires and endorsements, and refuse money from corporations and from senior AI executives. The caveat is that almost every number around it is reported rather than filed: the New York Times puts 10 million dollars raised with another 20 million targeted in 2027, Politico calls it a 30 million dollar effort, no donor is named, and Politico reports it is not yet clear whether the group is a super PAC, a 501(c)(4) or something else.

Until now

The organised money in American AI politics was industry money: super PACs backing candidates who oppose new rules, and a safety side made of researchers, letters and think tanks with no state-level machinery.

Now

Treat AI as a contested plank inside the Democratic primary calendar with staff, polling and money behind it, and watch the eleven named states rather than Washington for where the position gets written.

The pro-AI super PACs spent about 8 million dollars against Alex Bores this cycle, which is a large number to aim at a state assemblymember. On September 15 he answered it with an organisation. Who Decides launched with Bores as board president and Anna Myers, who ran his office, as executive director. The programme is not a lobbying shop and not an advertising campaign. It is eleven states, chosen for the primary calendar and the swing map: South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan, Virginia, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In each of them the plan is to work with local organisations that already have standing, get AI safety, jobs and accountability into their agendas, and push those agendas into the questionnaires and endorsements that decide which candidates get supported. Quarterly polling underneath it. The stated destination is 2028.

What is worth noticing is the funding rule and what is missing around it. The group says it will take no corporate money and nothing from senior AI executives, which is a constraint that only makes sense if you expect to be accused of the opposite, and which leaves it raising from individual donors and foundations against an industry side reported at more than 100 million dollars. Against that, the numbers are soft. The New York Times reports 10 million dollars raised and 20 million more sought in 2027; Politico calls it a 30 million dollar effort and says no funder has been named and the legal form is not yet clear, which matters, because a super PAC discloses its donors and a 501(c)(4) does not. So what happened on September 15 is verifiable and what it is worth is not, yet. Treat AI as a contested plank inside the Democratic primary calendar with staff, polling and money behind it, and watch the eleven named states rather than Washington for where the position gets written.

How it got here

Feb 20
An Anthropic-funded group backs Bores, who is being attacked by a rival pro-AI super PAC. Leading the Future is reported at more than 100 million dollars.
Sep 03
Bernie Sanders and Greg Casar introduce a bill to outlaw superintelligent AI and pause frontier development until a new regulator exists. Carded in Edition 009.
Sep 14
The President posts that AI needs no new guardrails, calls the safety concerns a hoax and attacks Anthropic's chief executive by name. Recorded in Edition 022.
Sep 15
Who Decides launches with eleven target states, quarterly polling and a bar on corporate and AI-executive money. The same day the Pro-Human Assembly meets in Washington with Sanders, Bannon and four members of Congress on the programme.
Who has to react
Leading the Future and the other pro-AI committees, which now face an organisation built specifically to survive their spending; Democratic primary candidates in eleven states who will be handed an AI questionnaire; the local groups being asked to adopt an AI agenda they did not ask for; Anthropic, whose political giving is already an issue in this fight and whose name will be attached to this whether it funds it or not; the Future of Life Institute, which held its own event the same day; and the White House, which has spent the week calling the safety argument a hoax.

The evidence

ObservedTuesday September 15, 2026. Who Decides launched at whodecides.org with Alex Bores as co-founder and board president and Anna Myers, his former chief of staff, as co-founder and executive director.

The whole observation, as recorded

The site states the programme: working across eleven early-primary and swing states, helping trusted local organisations build AI agendas covering safety, jobs and accountability, incorporating those priorities into candidate questionnaires and endorsements, producing quarterly polling on public attitudes to AI, and convening leaders across sectors. The eleven states named in the Politico account are South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan, Virginia, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The stated aim is to unify Democratic candidates around an AI position by 2028. The group says it will take no corporate money and no money from senior AI industry executives; donations on the site route through the Givebutter platform. Funding as reported: the New York Times, carried on Techmeme, says 10 million dollars has been raised with a further 20 million targeted in 2027; Politico describes a 30 million dollar effort and says no amount raised has been confirmed and no funders named. Politico also reports it was not immediately clear whether Who Decides is organised as a federal super PAC, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit or another form. Bores, quoted: we do not let five people write the laws for hundreds of millions of Americans, and there is no reason to let them write the rules for AI. Context on the other side of the ledger: Leading the Future, the pro-AI super PAC reported at more than 100 million dollars, and about 8 million dollars of opposition spending against Bores in his 2026 congressional race, which is the spending his own site cites. The launch fell on the same day as the Future of Life Institute's Pro-Human Assembly in Washington, where Bernie Sanders, Steve Bannon, Representatives Chip Roy, Greg Casar, Lori Trahan and Jay Obernolte appeared on the same programme.

Established

Who Decides launched publicly on September 15, 2026, with Alex Bores as co-founder and board president and Anna Myers as co-founder and executive director.
The organisation has published a specific programme: eleven named states, local agenda-building, candidate questionnaires and endorsements, quarterly polling and convenings.
It has publicly committed to refuse corporate money and money from senior AI industry executives.
It launched on the same day as the Future of Life Institute's Pro-Human Assembly in Washington, at which Bernie Sanders, Steve Bannon and four members of Congress appeared.

Not established

That 10 million dollars or 30 million dollars exists. No filing, audited figure or named donor supports either number, and the two published figures do not agree.
That any candidate will adopt the agenda. No endorsement, questionnaire or candidate commitment has been published.
That the Democratic party is moving. One organisation founded by a state assemblymember is not a party position, and the party's leadership has said nothing about it.
That the money is clean in the way the pledge implies. The legal form is not yet disclosed, and a 501(c)(4) would not have to name the donors that the pledge is meant to reassure people about.

Why it weighs this much

Signal strength

CostMedium

CommitmentMedium

ReversibilityEasy

PersistenceMonths

Cost is medium and deliberately scored down: a launch with a website, two named principals and an unverified funding figure is cheaper than it looks, and the only confirmed spending is whatever it took to stand the organisation up. Commitment is medium because the eleven states, the quarterly polling and the refusal of industry money are specific enough to be checked and embarrassing enough to break, but none of it is contractual. Reversibility is easy: organisations like this fold quietly all the time, and nothing published today prevents that. Persistence is months rather than years because the honest test is the first quarterly poll and the first endorsement cycle, both of which land well before 2028. We would rather publish a modest signal with modest bars than dress a launch as a movement.

What to watch

strengthens Who Decides publishes a quarterly poll and at least one candidate questionnaire or endorsement, or discloses named funders in a Federal Election Commission or Internal Revenue Service filing, by June 30, 2027.
weakens No poll, questionnaire, endorsement or disclosure of legal form and funders appears by June 30, 2027, and no statewide Democratic candidate in the eleven named states adopts the agenda in public.

The words

Super PAC: A committee that can raise and spend unlimited money to support or attack candidates, as long as it does not coordinate with them. Donors are disclosed.
501(c)(4): A nonprofit that may lobby and do some political work and does not have to name its donors. The choice between this and a super PAC decides how much the public learns about who paid.
Early-primary state: A state that votes near the start of a presidential nominating contest. Positions that survive there tend to become the party's national position.
RAISE Act: The New York law Bores wrote requiring safety disclosures from developers of the largest AI models. It is the state statute the industry's political spending was aimed at.

Your call

Which explanation do you believe?

A call is final. Other people's calls show after yours.