12 Days Out: Alex Bores on AI, Democracy, and the Race for Manhattan

The latest polling suggests this race will come down to you, fellow Assembly Member Micah Lasher or Jack Schlossberg. For a voter who is still undecided — what is the substantive difference between you and the other two, either in approach to governance or on policy?

I think there are certain issues where we differ, like on AI policy, housing policy, and public education. But I also think this race is about our track records. I was ranked by the Center for Effective Lawmaking as the most effective new legislator from New York City. Beyond that, this is a Democratic primary in a very blue district. People are really interested in who can fight Donald Trump. I'm the only candidate running who has beaten Donald Trump legislatively, and I've done it twice — last year, passing the RAISE Act over the objection of his executive order. And just a few weeks ago, when he proposed that slush fund to give to the insurrectionists, I wrote and introduced a bill to put a 100% state income tax on any of those slush fund payments, which was then copied by five other states. Trump backed down from the slush fund. Being able to push back against this administration to protect New Yorkers has been a real difference in this race.

Before we get into AI — what issues come up most often when you're talking to constituents in NY-12?

It is a well-off district, and still the cost of living is absolutely insane. The cost of housing makes it impossible for people to raise families in neighborhoods they grew up in. Access to healthcare is supremely important, and the fight for universal healthcare and access to childcare is just out of this world. Cost of living is still top of mind for many voters in the district. There's also just a broader feeling of getting government to work for people again — ending the corruption that we're seeing, and having government actually focus on solving problems.

At Axios last week, you pushed back on the perception that you're 'anti-AI.' And your voting record bears that out — you've authored the RAISE Act, but you've also opposed several bills that would have imposed constraints on how banks and businesses use AI. Is there a principle or common thread that explains which AI guardrails you support and which you don't?

The principle is whether it's putting human beings first. This is a space where the technology is moving really, really quickly. Most of the people we have in elected office don't have the backgrounds to deeply understand it. But more to the point, they are absolutely terrified of the spending that would come from the lobby if they ever crossed it. I have always been the legislator that dug into the details of bills and made sure they are actually structured in a way that will help people in the end, not just asking for symbolic victories.

The RAISE Act was a landmark achievement — but the final version signed by Governor Hochul was notably watered down from what the Legislature originally passed. How involved were you in those negotiations, and are there lessons you plan to take from that experience to Capitol Hill?

I was the person negotiating. I wrote the bill. It was yet another example of what you're seeing in this campaign — there is a small subset of Silicon Valley that doesn't believe there should be any regulation on AI whatsoever, and is willing to spend however much they think it takes to get that outcome. Some in industry were negotiating in good faith, and most of what they raised we were able to deal with. But what was left at the end was really this bad faith contingent in the industry, just willing to spend however much it takes to get their way and to drown out the voices of the American people. What I take from that is just knowing that the crazies are out there and they're going to spend. And you just have to clearly communicate why it's so important that the American people have a say.

Just last week, the New York State Legislature passed a bill you co-sponsored that would establish a one-year moratorium on large data center construction. Is that the right approach — how do you view the broader tension between local communities pushing back on AI data center development and industry's need to keep building them out?

What that bill does — and what some proposals at the federal level do — is pause things until there are regulations in place that actually make sure the system is working for us. If we set up the incentives correctly, you have new green energy on the grid, a more reliable grid, and lower costs for people. But you have to set the incentives to do that. If you don't, the current incentives lead to what Elon Musk is doing — spinning up gas turbines and ruining an entire town. Or reactivating coal and oil plants that were being shut down. Literally, the incentives right now push toward the dirtiest forms of energy. There was an earlier proposal that was just a blanket three-year moratorium, and I had a lot of concerns with that. The one I co-sponsored was a one-year pause that directs the PSC (the Public Service Commission) to come up with regulations that make sure we get this right.

You've proposed an AI Dividend — direct cash payments to Americans funded by a token tax on AI companies. Is that something you think could actually get through Congress, and is drafting that legislation something you plan to prioritize if you get there?

Yeah, absolutely. Americans are seeing the disruption happening in the labor market — in professions people previously thought were protected. But right now our tax system actually incentivizes laying off humans to hire AI. That makes no sense and needs to be changed. And look, every time I introduce a new AI policy, I get a text from members of Congress saying "this is great." And every time I reply with "Hey, introduce it yourself — I'm not going to be there for seven months, go ahead, get started." I have no pride of ownership. And they don't. Part of it is people are terrified of the massive amount of spending that comes at you if you actually try to regulate this. If I can win this race, if I can show that standing with the people, standing with your constituents, standing with your neighbors who just want a say in how this develops is a winning political message, I think that will massively change the willingness of current members of Congress to engage in this discussion. Of course, if the super PAC wins, I think that just silences everyone a little more.

You've been at the center of a spending war between two Super PACs representing warring factions of the AI industry. Setting aside the policy questions around AI — has that experience changed your views on the role of Super PACs in our elections? And more broadly, are there structural democracy reforms — ranked-choice voting, enlarging the House, Supreme Court reform — you'd want to champion in Congress?

I don't think the super PACs being involved has changed my perspective, because I've been against super PACs from the beginning. It's horrible — the influence on our democracy. One of the first things I did in politics was make videos and try to raise money for Lawrence Lessig's Mayday PAC to end all super PACs. I believe we should reverse Citizens United — whether that requires a Supreme Court ruling or a constitutional amendment. Every single dollar that goes into super PACs should be disclosed. I'm a big proponent of public matching programs, banning partisan gerrymandering, and election protection so that it's voters choosing their elected officials and not the other way around. Expanding voting rights — sign me up. There is so much more we need to do to make government actually work.