Meta has escalated its fight against artificial intelligence regulation, launching a new super PAC called the American Technology Excellence Project. The company is pouring “tens of millions” of dollars into the initiative, according to Axios, to push back against growing state-level proposals.

The PAC will be bipartisan, run by Republican strategist Brian Baker and Democratic firm Hilltop Public Solutions, and will focus on electing tech-friendly candidates in the 2026 midterm elections.

Rachel Holland, a Meta spokesperson, said the PAC would “promote and defend U.S. tech companies and leadership, advocate for AI progress, and put parents in charge of how their children experience online apps and AI technologies.”

The emphasis on parental control comes as Meta faces scrutiny over child safety. Internal leaks revealed chatbots allowed “romantic” interactions with minors, and whistleblower reports alleged the company suppressed safety research.

Last month, Meta also launched a California-focused PAC to back tech-friendly candidates in state races, underscoring its multi-level strategy to influence both state and national policy debates on AI regulation.

The lobbying drive comes amid unprecedented activity in state legislatures. More than 1,000 AI-related bills were introduced across all 50 states during the 2025 legislative session.

In California, two bills await Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature:

Brian Rice, Meta VP of public policy, said the new PAC would back candidates who “embrace AI development, champion the U.S. technology industry, and defend American tech leadership at home and abroad.”

Meta is not alone. Last month, Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI President Greg Brockman launched Leading the Future, a Silicon Valley pro-AI super PAC network with over $100 million in funding.

The group intends to use campaign donations and digital ads to influence elections, opposing candidates it sees as hostile to AI innovation. The strategy is modeled on the Fairshake crypto PAC, which played a significant role in former President Donald Trump’s election victory.

Earlier this year, industry leaders even backed a proposal to impose a 10-year federal moratorium on state AI regulation, though the measure was struck down.

Tech companies argue that a fragmented system of state-level regulations will create compliance burdens, slow progress, and give China an advantage in the global AI race.

But critics counter that the industry’s warnings about innovation are overstated. Instead, opponents argue, Big Tech resists regulation to avoid dedicating money and resources to safety compliance, even as risks to children, consumers, and democracy mount.

Not all voices in politics and industry are aligned with Big Tech’s anti-regulation lobbying.

In September, Senator Ted Cruz introduced the AI Policy Framework and Sandbox Act, which would create a federal AI oversight structure while allowing for sandbox environments where companies can experiment under regulatory supervision. The proposal calls for:

Cruz’s push is notable because it contrasts with the White House’s current approach, which has emphasized light-touch regulation and deference to industry self-policing. His framework represents a more structured effort to put federal guardrails in place rather than leaving the issue to the states.

Meanwhile, Anthropic has taken a markedly different stance from its Silicon Valley peers. The company has:

Together, these examples show that while some of the largest tech companies are investing millions to resist oversight, both policymakers and leading AI developers are pushing for regulatory frameworks that prioritize safety and accountability.

Q: What new PAC did Meta launch?
A: The American Technology Excellence Project, investing “tens of millions” to oppose AI regulation and back tech-friendly candidates.

Q: Who else is funding anti-regulation PACs?
A: Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI President Greg Brockman launched Leading the Future, with more than $100 million.

Q: What regulations are on the table in California?
A: SB 243 would regulate AI chatbots for minors, and SB 53 would impose transparency requirements on large AI companies.

Q: What is the industry’s argument against regulation?
A: Companies claim a “patchwork” of state laws would slow innovation and weaken U.S. competitiveness against China.

Q: What do critics say about that argument?
A: They argue it is less about innovation and more about avoiding compliance costs and accountability.

The surge of lobbying dollars from Big Tech underscores the urgency of the debate over AI governance. Companies argue that regulations will slow innovation, but history shows industries often make this claim to avoid compliance costs and accountability.

Effective regulation does not have to stifle progress — it can set clear rules of the road, protect the public, and ensure that innovation benefits society rather than concentrating power in a few firms.

With voices like Sen. Cruz and Anthropic calling for stronger safeguards, the future of AI regulation remains unsettled. How the U.S. balances industry influence with public accountability will shape not only the technology’s growth, but also its trustworthiness in the eyes of the public.

Editor’s Note: This article was created by Alicia Shapiro, CMO of AiNews.com, with writing, image, and idea-generation support from ChatGPT, an AI assistant. However, the final perspective and editorial choices are solely Alicia Shapiro’s. Special thanks to ChatGPT for assistance with research and editorial support in crafting this article.