Tech Is on the Ballot. So Is Who Gets to Call the Shots

Elon Musk’s name is not on today’s ballot, but he has put approximately $446 million behind the effort to elect Republicans. The Guardian’s analysis of Federal Election Commission records through October 29 identifies him as this cycle’s largest individual political contributor. That money includes approximately $216 million to America PAC and $168 million to the Senate Leadership Fund. These are contributions to political organizations, rather than a tally of advertising already purchased or voters already contacted.

That seems like a reasonable place to begin a discussion of technology in this election. We can catalogue the data center proposals, surveillance questions and utility commission races voters will decide today. We should. But an examination that stops there leaves out the extraordinary effort by technology’s wealthiest owners to help choose the government that will oversee their businesses.

I have spent much of my career covering technology and building businesses in this industry. I believe technological progress can improve people’s lives. I also believe the people financing that progress have interests of their own, and we should examine those interests with the same skepticism we apply to anyone else seeking political power.

Musk makes that responsibility impossible to ignore. His financial support for the GOP is explicit, substantial and directed toward preserving the power of a party with which he has closely associated himself. Describing this simply as “technology getting involved in politics” understates what is happening.

Start With the People Writing the Checks

Musk combines political financing with ownership of X, leadership of major technology businesses and direct experience wielding government authority through DOGE. His companies hold billions of dollars in government contracts. Government decisions affect his businesses, while his political spending supports the people seeking authority to make those decisions. The Brennan Center identifies those overlapping interests in its analysis of this year’s largest donors.

That does not establish that a contribution purchased a particular contract or regulatory decision. It establishes why scrutiny is warranted. When government serves as customer, regulator and policymaker for a donor’s businesses, the public has an interest in knowing how those relationships operate.

Nor should we bury the scale of Musk’s involvement beneath obligatory references to wealthy Democrats. Yes, technology donors have different political views. Yes, some industry organizations support candidates in both parties. But a powerful faction of technology’s billionaire owners and investors has aligned with the Republican Party in power, and the largest individual contributor is financing that alliance on an exceptional scale.

The disagreement within technology is part of this story. A billionaire owner does not speak for every engineer on the payroll, every founder using the company’s services or every IT professional purchasing its products. They may share an interest in a technology’s success while disagreeing profoundly about taxes, regulation, public spending or the conduct of government.

Other technology interests are building their own political operations. Leading the Future’s FEC summary reports approximately $76 million in receipts through October 14 and $52.2 million in disbursements, including $47 million contributed to other committees. Those figures require care: money moving between committees cannot be counted again as new money when another organization spends it.

Crypto provides a particularly clear example of what these operations seek to accomplish. Reuters reported October 27 that crypto interests had spent roughly $176 million across more than 100 races, pursuing a durable, bipartisan group of allies. Many advertisements emphasized issues such as taxes or immigration rather than cryptocurrency.

The ad asks voters to worry about immigration or taxes. The people paying for it want a say in how their industry is regulated. Voters can agree with the advertisement and still deserve to know whose interests financed its production.

The Data Center Down the Road

At the local level, the choices are easier to see. Ballotpedia’s November 2 tally identifies 41 data center measures in 10 states on today’s ballots. Approval would restrict development in 28 cases and facilitate it in 13. The measures cover prohibitions, zoning, financial guarantees and requirements for voter approval.

These are different proposals in different communities. A vote against one project does not establish opposition to AI, cloud computing or technological progress. A resident can use AI every day and still think the proposed arrangement for a nearby data center is a bad deal.

Residents have practical questions. Who finances the additional electricity infrastructure? How much water will the project require? What permanent employment and tax revenue can the community reasonably expect? What happens if the developer changes its plans after public resources have been committed? Who can enforce the promises made to win approval?

Developers have legitimate answers to offer. Computing infrastructure supports services people use, and projects can bring investment and revenue. Those benefits should be evaluated alongside the costs and obligations. Announcing a multibillion-dollar project does not, by itself, tell residents whether their community will come out ahead.

The parties also approach the decision from different positions. An investor can compare projects across a portfolio. A resident owns a home near the proposed site. A utility must plan for demand, while its other customers want assurance that they will not absorb costs properly attributable to the new development. Those interests can be reconciled, but doing so requires more than asking everyone to trust the projections.

Surveillance puts another concrete technology decision before voters. York, Maine, and League City, Texas, have measures addressing automated license plate readers. League City’s question is advisory. In both places, residents have an opportunity to weigh a technology used in their communities, including whether its benefits justify the collection of information about their movements.

Using the Product Does Not Mean Endorsing the Owner

Technology companies have reason to take these concerns seriously. An October survey of 2,980 Americans released by USC Annenberg on November 2 found that 71% did not trust Big Tech at all to act in society’s best interest concerning data center development. Seventy-six percent thought government was doing too little to regulate AI; 77% said the same about data centers. Those responses do not predict how people will vote, but they give companies little basis for assuming public confidence.

I wonder how often technology executives confuse adoption with approval. People use products for all sorts of reasons: They work well, their employer requires them, their customers expect them or replacing them would be expensive. None of those choices amounts to endorsing the owner’s political agenda.

The same applies to infrastructure. Purchasing cloud services does not commit a customer to supporting every tax incentive offered to a developer. Using AI does not mean accepting its creators’ preferred rules for oversight. People are entitled to make those judgments separately.

For someone worried about a power bill or a job, predictions of future abundance can sound remote. The benefits may arrive, but that person still needs to know what obligations are being accepted now and who will protect their interests if the promises fall short. Campaign spending cannot supply that assurance.

There are meaningful disagreements among AI companies about safeguards. Anthropic says its $40 million in support for Public First Action is restricted to education and policy work and cannot be used to influence candidate elections. That money should not be mislabeled as campaign spending.

Still, the public deserves more influence than choosing which wealthy institution’s agenda it finds least objectionable. Government is supposed to represent people who cannot finance a political committee or hire a team to negotiate on their behalf.

What Voters Can Decide

Tonight’s results will require careful interpretation. Rejecting a data center proposal will not prove a community rejects technology. Electing a Republican will not constitute approval of every Musk business or political objective. Electing a Democrat will not eliminate the influence of concentrated wealth.

But voters can choose officials willing to scrutinize contracts, enforce commitments and challenge powerful companies. In some communities, they can directly approve or reject the terms of technology development. Those decisions have consequences long after the advertising stops.

Technology leaders should want durable public support for what they build. Earning it requires honest accounting, enforceable protections and participation early enough for residents to change the outcome. People who are expected to carry costs and accept risks deserve authority over the bargain.

Musk and other wealthy technology backers have spent heavily to help choose the government they want. The rest of us have interests in that government, too, and we have a vote in deciding who will represent them.

If you haven’t already voted, please get out and vote today. Make time, make a plan and have your say about the future you want for your family and your community. This is your opportunity to exercise the power that belongs to you. Use it.