OpenAI’s Political Strategy: Reverse Federalism and National Frameworks
OpenAI’s top political strategist, Chris Lehane, refers to the industry’s state-level AI lawmaking approach as "reverse federalism". Meanwhile, OpenAI’s president and a16z are backing super PACs that advocate for a national framework, preempting state regulations.
The company has taken a seemingly contradictory stance, requesting both mandatory federal requirements from Congress and tougher state laws in California, where they previously fought similar legislation.
A National vs. State Approach
- State-by-State Route: Lehane’s "reverse federalism" involves each state creating its own AI regulations, making it easier to implement laws and allowing companies to adapt to similar standards across different states.
- National Framework: On the other hand, industry funding aims for a single, national AI regulation framework that would override state-level laws, suggesting a more uniform approach.
The Constant: Who Holds the Pen
Despite these seemingly opposing positions, a consistent theme emerges: OpenAI is advocating for regulation, just not necessarily the venue. They are open to rules in any forum where they can participate in the drafting process.
Recent Developments
- State Engagement: OpenAI has requested California to strengthen its state AI law, demonstrating a real interest in state-level policy.
- Federal Request: Concurrently, the company has asked Congress for mandatory national AI safety requirements.
These actions reveal a strategic approach where OpenAI is willing to adapt its stance to the specific context, whether it’s state or federal levels, as long as they have a say in the regulation-making process.
The Debate
The week in Washington saw discussions about whether the AI industry genuinely supports regulation. President Trump dismissed the need for slowing AI down, while Vice President JD Vance perceived efforts to regulate as a Trojan horse.
Ashley Gold in her Semafor column highlights the industry’s shift from resisting regulation to actively shaping it, a strategy they believe is more effective than simply claiming innocence.
Conclusion
The situation is a complex interplay of industry funding, political strategies, and policy-making venues. While some parts of the AI industry push for a national framework, others engage with state-level laws, ultimately aiming for regulation, just not necessarily in the same way.