November 13, 2026, (Inside AI) — The AI industry poured more than $300 million into super PACs and dark-money groups ahead of the 2026 midterms. Voters responded by rejecting data center projects in 40 of 41 ballot measures and electing candidates who campaigned against them. Now the companies that spent heavily to shape the outcome face a more complicated problem: complying with a patchwork of political laws that few in the industry anticipated.
The scale of the political failure is striking. Campaigns spent over $380 million on television ads mentioning data centers, according to AdImpact. NBC exit polling found that 76 percent of voters opposed building a new data center in their community. 56 percent said the issue was a major or crucial factor in their congressional vote. Candidates who ran against data centers won governorships in Texas and Georgia and a Senate seat in Ohio.
The industry's lobbying footprint has grown just as fast. The number of federal lobbyists registered on AI issues rose from 1,672 in 2022 to 6,110 in 2025, a 265 percent increase, according to Public Citizen. That growth brings exposure to laws governing political contributions, lobbying disclosure, and nonprofit donations that vary by state and locality.
New Mexico Case Reveals Disclosure Risks
A case in New Mexico shows how quickly routine advocacy can become a legal matter. Earlier this year, the State Ethics Commission alleged that Oracle and Elevate New Mexico, an advocacy organization, ran unregistered grassroots lobbying campaigns. The groups urged the public to contact the State Environment Department to support air-quality permits for a data center.
Read: Nvidia Faces Democratic Scrutiny After Midterm Landslide
The ads may have fallen outside the state's lobbying law, which may not have covered efforts to influence permit decisions. Oracle registered anyway and disclosed approximately $3.44 million in lobbying expenditures. Elevate New Mexico initially resisted, then settled and registered after the Commission sued. It ultimately disclosed about $3.7 million in contributions from its sole funder, the data center's developer, Yucca Growth Infrastructure.
The episode illustrates a broader truth: conduct that companies treat as ordinary public relations can trigger registration and disclosure obligations. More than 25 states have lobbying laws that cover grassroots advocacy, meaning communications that include a call to action asking the public to contact officials. Some jurisdictions define grassroots lobbying even more broadly, capturing communications merely intended to influence public opinion on a government action.
Political contributions carry separate risks. Strict liability pay-to-play laws in some states and localities can bar companies from government contracts for years if certain contributions are made. The longest ban, in New Jersey, runs 5.5 years. In some jurisdictions, the ban extends to any financial arrangement with the government. Contributions linked to a particular government decision can also violate anti-corruption laws, including bribery statutes and the federal Honest Services Fraud statute.
Donations to 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations present another layer. These groups can engage in unlimited lobbying and some political activity, historically up to roughly 40 percent of their overall activity, and can accept unlimited corporate contributions that are not publicly disclosed under federal tax law. But some jurisdictions require 501(c)(4)s that lobby to disclose certain donors on lobbying reports. Even more require disclosure when the groups make independent expenditures or electioneering communications.
Donors also cannot give to a 501(c)(4) with the intent or understanding that the money will flow to a political committee required to disclose its donors. The ultimate recipient would report the 501(c)(4), not the original donor, as the source of funds, violating bans on contributions made in the name of another.
Independent expenditures and electioneering communications add further complexity. Independent expenditures expressly advocate for or against a candidate and must be disclosed. Electioneering communications merely identify a candidate and air during a pre-election window, such as 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election under federal law. Issue ads that mention a candidate can fall into this category.
The midterm results will likely push AI companies toward more engagement, not less. They will need to work with newly elected Democrats at the federal and state levels and educate the public about the technology. That means navigating a legal landscape where reputational harm can rival legal liability.
Read: Trump Says AI Risks Manageable, Open to Guardrails
Companies donating to 501(c)(4)s may want to obtain representations from the organization about its status, activities, and use of funds. Those representations can confirm compliance and clarify whether the company will be publicly disclosed as a donor. Companies should also check whether they have committed to disclose such donations, for example in response to activist shareholder proposals. For those establishing or significantly funding a 501(c)(4), additional diligence may include grant agreements rather than simple representations, to confirm the organization operates independently of its donors.
The political law questions are not abstract. They arrive as data center projects face local opposition and as federal and state officials scrutinize the industry's influence spending. For AI companies, the next election cycle may test whether they can convert political spending into durable relationships without running afoul of rules designed to keep money and government decisions separate.
Sofia spent years studying how machines parse human language before pivoting to cover the systems now rewriting it. She reads technical papers the way others read news and looking for what the numbers are actually saying beneath the headlines.
