The AI Regulation Divide: A Tale of Money, Momentum, and Misdirection

The recent launch of Who Decides, a $30 million nonprofit aimed at regulating AI, has reignited debate about industry funds shaping policy. At its core, this is not just a story about money; it’s also about momentum – and who gets to dictate the narrative.

Alex Bores, a former Palantir engineer and New York state Assemblymember, knows firsthand the challenges of navigating complex AI regulation. His RAISE Act, which aimed to establish stricter safety standards for AI development, was watered down by industry pressure and ultimately passed in its weaker form. This experience has left him convinced that a more comprehensive approach is needed – one that prioritizes public interest over private gain.

Polling data shows 80% of Americans want stronger regulation on AI. Yet, despite this consensus, Congress continues to falter in the face of industry opposition. The RAISE Act’s fate serves as a stark reminder that even when the majority is on one side, money and influence can still sway policy.

Bores’ decision to launch Who Decides reflects his frustration with the status quo – and his determination to create a more level playing field for AI advocacy groups. By uniting existing organizations under a shared agenda, he hopes to build momentum for real reform. This effort will require more than just money; it demands a willingness to challenge entrenched interests and confront the gray areas that often surround AI policy.

The AI industry’s messaging on regulation has been marked by inconsistency – and opportunism. OpenAI’s Sam Altman initially advocated for stricter controls but reversed course in 2025, warning of “disastrous” government oversight. Meanwhile, Anthropic’s Dario Amodei has maintained a pro-regulation stance, even as his company has become embroiled in high-stakes lobbying battles.

Bores notes that the same narrow set of financiers continues to push for minimal regulation, despite industry figures like Altman and Amodei initially advocating for greater oversight. This paradox highlights the complex web of interests that underpins AI policy – and underscores the need for a more nuanced approach.

The recent controversy surrounding Jacob Coxon’s resignation from Anthropic serves as a stark reminder of the stakes involved. In the wake of Coxon’s departure, Bores has seen an uptick in outreach from Democratic lawmakers, who are increasingly recognizing the importance of regulating AI. However, this momentum may be short-lived – and Who Decides’ efforts will need to contend with ongoing industry influence and entrenched interests.

In 2025, Sen. Ted Cruz inserted language into the “One Big Beautiful Bill” that would have effectively preempted state-level AI laws for a decade. This move was ultimately stripped from the bill – but its inclusion serves as a stark reminder of the ways in which industry-backed lawmakers can shape the narrative on regulation.

Cruz’s new federal AI safety bill, co-sponsored with Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Majority Leader John Thune, may seem like a more palatable solution – but it bears an uncanny resemblance to Cruz’s earlier proposal. As Bores notes, this bill represents “essentially [the same] old bill wrapped in federal packaging.” The real challenge lies not in passing yet another AI safety bill, but in confronting the deeper structural issues that have allowed industry influence to dominate policy.

The battle for AI regulation will be won or lost in the gray areas – where public interest and private gain collide. Who Decides’ efforts represent a crucial step forward in this fight – one that requires a willingness to challenge entrenched interests, build momentum around public priorities, and confront the paradoxes at the heart of AI policy.