WASHINGTON — Democratic candidates in several closely contested 2026 races are being advised to keep artificial-intelligence regulation out of the center of their campaigns, as party strategists fear a backlash from heavily funded technology groups. The private guidance has reached campaigns in at least three competitive House contests, according to people involved in the races. Democratic lawmakers and strategists say industry-aligned super PACs could spend millions of dollars against candidates who take positions viewed as hostile to the AI sector. The political dilemma comes as voters show increasing concern about the technology. A recent poll found that roughly two-thirds of Americans believe advanced AI could pose a risk of destroying humanity. President Donald Trump has dismissed those concerns as a “hoax,” giving Democrats an opportunity to draw a contrast with the administration. But party strategists worry that aggressive messaging could trigger a costly advertising campaign against candidates already facing a difficult outside-spending environment. The concern is particularly acute in races involving Reps. Don Davis of North Carolina, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Henry Cuellar of Texas, as well as contests in South Texas and Pennsylvania. Trump and his allies are already spending heavily to support Republicans, while billionaire Elon Musk, a major AI investor, has also become a significant political donor and spender, though not chiefly on AI policy. “We do need to be able to make sure that we’re regulating AI and addressing those real fears,” one senior Democratic strategist working on Senate campaigns said. “But we don’t want AI money coming in.” Cuellar, who represents a Republican-leaning South Texas district, said candidates should balance local political realities with their policy views. “Like any industry, there should be a conversation about guardrails,” he said. “But every member needs to make their own decision based on their district and beliefs.” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat and former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the industry’s public support for some regulation has not prevented it from opposing lawmakers who pursue binding rules. “These AI groups — they come out and they say that they’re concerned, that they want regulation,” Jayapal said. “But then they spend huge amounts of money on defeating anybody who wants legislative regulation.” Jayapal said Democrats could face an intensified spending campaign if they regain control of Congress and move forward with plans to establish a dedicated process for AI legislation. She argued that technology companies may prefer lawmakers who allow the industry substantial influence over the final rules. The fight is already taking shape among competing AI-backed political networks. Leading the Future, a pro-industry super PAC backed by OpenAI investors and executives, spent more than $25 million in primary elections this year. The group declined to identify a specific AI policy it opposes and said it supports “strong and smart national regulation.” Its spokesperson, Josh Vlasto, accused rival groups funded by Anthropic and effective altruists of using threats and intimidation against Democratic lawmakers. Leading the Future began its first general-election advertising campaign Wednesday, committing $2 million to support Republican Senate candidates Julia Letlow in Louisiana, Cindy Hyde-Smith in Mississippi, Darline Graham in South Carolina and Mike Rounds in South Dakota. A competing network, Public First Action, supports regulation under certain conditions. Its co-founder, Brad Carson, said the group is especially likely to back candidates who support export controls on AI technology and oppose federal rules that would prevent states from setting their own AI regulations before Congress establishes a national framework. The group plans to participate in the general election, Carson said. The two networks previously clashed in primary contests, including a New York race in which competing AI spending reached tens of millions of dollars. Democratic strategists fear similar conflicts could spill into key general-election races, making candidates targets regardless of whether they favor stronger oversight or a more industry-friendly approach. Some Democrats are nevertheless choosing to make AI regulation a central part of their platforms. Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic Senate nominee in Michigan, has called for a broad regulatory crackdown and a full pause in frontier AI research. He said he would rather stand by his position than avoid scrutiny from the technology industry, although he has not decided whether to purchase campaign advertising focused on AI. Reps. Susie Lee of Nevada and Greg Landsman of Ohio, both Democrats in competitive districts, said they support additional safeguards but do not plan to run AI-focused ads. Their approach reflects the issue’s uncertain electoral standing: voter concern is rising, but AI has not yet become a top priority for most November voters. Republicans, meanwhile, are hoping AI-backed political groups will target Democrats who have been especially critical of the industry. Possible targets include Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia and the Texas attorney general’s race, where Republican nominee Ken Paxton has trailed in several recent polls. The dispute puts candidates in a difficult position. Stronger rules could address public concerns about job losses, misinformation, privacy and safety, but campaigns that foreground those proposals may invite a wave of spending from technology interests seeking to shape who controls Congress and what lawmakers do with that power.