The campaign trail can turn on a single phone call. During a recent round of phone banking, a voter snapped at Alex Bores, assuming he still worked for Palantir. She hung up before learning that Bores had resigned in 2019 over concerns the company’s work enabled deportations. That context rarely makes its way into attack ads, many of which were seeded by the Super PAC Leading the Future. Contributors tied to powerful corners of tech — including Joe Lonsdale, venture firm Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman and investor Ron Conway — have underwritten messaging that flattens nuance into a single label.
At 35, Bores is a New York assemblymember running in a competitive Democratic primary for the 12th Congressional District, a swath that covers most of midtown and both Upper East and West Sides. The field has included familiar names: Jack Schlossberg, George Conway and Micah Lasher, and briefly Cam Casky before he stepped back to focus on activism. Early polls put Schlossberg and Bores near the top, and watchers have noted the unusual youth of the contenders. Bores emphasizes his technical background — a degree in computer science and start-up experience — as part of what he brings to debates on technology policy.
Why big tech is escalating its tactics
The playbook being deployed this cycle looks familiar to anyone who tracked 2026 and the height of crypto-era political spending: single-issue super PACs pour serious money into quick, high-impact ad buys to punish candidates who challenge their interests. Critics argue these groups no longer rely on broad persuasion so much as on making cautionary examples of a few hopefuls. With public sentiment toward AI cooling, these donors find it harder to sell unabashedly pro-tech platforms, so they focus on blunt attack ads and selective framing. Bores worries these tactics aim to reshape incentives in Congress: win now, he says, even if it means bullying the field into silence for one or two cycles.
A campaign forced onto defense
That strategy has forced Bores into defensive work he did not expect to dominate his calendar. Instead of talking about zoning or health care, much of his time is consumed by rebuttals, constituent outreach and damage control. He notes the irony: powerful backers would prefer he spent campaign funds responding to relentless outreach rather than explaining his policy priorities. The result is a drain on resources and momentum, a dynamic that can deter other challengers from taking firm positions for fear of becoming the next target of well-funded PACs.
Policy record and pragmatic positioning
Bores’s approach is more pragmatic than incendiary. His public proposals include federally funded support for AI research, programs to upskill workers for AI-driven workplaces and incentives for data centers that adopt green energy and cover necessary grid upgrades. Those stances have drawn criticism from some civil liberties advocates — I spoke with an ACLU representative who called him too “pro-corporate” — but they also reflect his desire to shape realistic policy rather than symbolic gestures. In the Assembly he has been active: a recognized track record includes shepherding 28 bills through in just over three years and earning a top ranking as an effective new legislator from the Center for Effective Lawmaking.
Relationships, donations and identity
Outside groups have also tried to recast Bores through associations with the effective altruism community, pointing to donations from figures such as Eliezer Yudkowsky, Adam Yedidia and several AI-safety researchers. Bores responds carefully: he appreciates the moral impulse behind taking seriously how to do the most good, but he resists letting that label define his politics. Personal notes, he says, have been instructive: parenting a newborn taught him that name-calling is often the sign of a weak argument, not a strong one.
The stakes: regulation, representation and future cycles
For Bores the urgency is about more than a single race. He frames the moment as one where Congress must act on AI regulation before certain power structures become entrenched and difficult to undo. He also hopes to pivot the conversation away from defensive maneuvering toward issues like housing affordability and Medicare for All. Standing in the district — I met him on the steps of the New York Public Library — he highlights a constituency that is highly educated and engaged, a place where technical chops and legislative effectiveness can matter. A photograph from the campaign shows him speaking with a constituent on Oct 19, 2026, a snapshot of an uphill fight that also feels like a chance to shape how tech and politics intersect in the near term.
Whether the outside spending ultimately changes voter calculations or simply noise up for a cycle remains to be seen. For now, Bores’s campaign combines a record of legislative productivity, a tech-fluent policy agenda and the practical demands of fighting back against concentrated, well-resourced opposition. That mix will determine not just his prospects, but how other lawmakers perceive the cost of standing up to powerful donors in the years ahead.
