AI was again at the center of the heated contest over who will next represent San Francisco in Congress.
Sen. Scott Wiener said at a debate Tuesday night he is the “only candidate” who has actually regulated the burgeoning, hometown industry. Supervisor Connie Chan asked why voters should pick someone backed by millions from AI-backed groups.
“How can we as San Franciscans, but really all across the nation, trust you to be able to regulate AI with integrity, and not just placate the industry?” Chan asked at the forum at the Sydney Goldstein Theater, moderated by Mission Local and The New York Times.
Wiener retorted, “I was literally the first lawmaker in the United States of America to introduce a bill to regulate AI,” which, he added, several states are now “replicating.”
Twice during the night, Wiener was asked about $3.5 million that went to a pro-Wiener independent expenditure committee from Public First Action, an AI policy advocacy group heavily funded by Anthropic. Of that sum, $3 million was revealed by reporters just hours before the debate.
“There’s no Anthropic money in the race,” Wiener said, a sentence he repeated three times Tuesday night.
While Anthropic has given $40 million to Public First Action — half of its total fundraising, a spokesperson said — “none of the $3.5 million we contributed to the [pro-Wiener] super PAC came from Anthropic,” said Public First Action spokesperson Anthony Rivera-Rodriguez.
Anthropic restricted its donations to public education, and not candidates, the AI firm added.
Still, money is fungible, and Chan sought to draw blood.
“It is disappointing that Scott Wiener will say anything to win this race on this stage right now,” she said. Within an hour, her campaign posted a social media piece on the gift: “He’s lying,” it read.
The two candidates vying to succeed Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi in Congress stood before many hundreds of people at the Sydney Goldstein Theater in a debate co-presented by City Arts & Lectures, and moderated by Mission Local managing editor Joe Eskenazi and New York Times San Francisco bureau chief Heather Knight.
It was the last debate before Election Day. Five of the dozen-plus questions touched on artificial intelligence.
Wiener repeatedly said he is the author of the country’s first AI safety bill, SB 53, which was passed in 2025. Chan, however, claimed Wiener “watered down” the legislation in collaboration with the AI industry after opposition from the industry and politicos including Gov. Gavin Newsom and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a Chan backer.
Wiener said that was bunk, stating that both the AI industry and “a gentleman by the name of Donald Trump” sought to sink his bill. “The big tech companies did not like that bill.”
Both candidates agreed, however, that Anthropic and OpenAI should have been held liable for hacking attacks earlier this year, and that strong safety precautions should be taken before more problems occur.
Chan said the companies should “absolutely” face civil or criminal consequences for the hacks; Wiener said the firms should face civil penalties and “potentially” criminal ones, too.
On the tech industry’s role in making San Francisco one of the most unaffordable cities in the world, Wiener said that San Francisco has always been a “boom-bust town,” and argued that it was not AI but the fact that “San Francisco historically has refused to build the housing it needs” that is responsible for soaring rents and prices.
“So the question is, why is San Francisco yet again unprepared with housing for the ups and downs of our economy?” he said of the recent AI boom.
Chan said the AI industry needs to be taxed, arguing for worker protections.
“If they are going to try to replace our workforce, they should be taxed accordingly,” she said. “Any companies using automation should also pay their taxes, so that it does not become an incentive for them to replace the workforce.”
The candidates also squared off over another very San Francisco preoccupation: how to define what it means to be progressive.
Chan, in one of her most pointed remarks of the night, said the race is one between “a corporate Democrat” and “a labor Democrat.” Wiener said it was between “a Democrat who has actually taken on and beaten the most powerful corporations in the world,” and “a Democrat who just talks about it.”
Neither answered a question about who would be their ideal Democratic nominee for president in 2028, though both urged unity.
“No one should be excluded just because they are a bit more progressive,” said Chan.
Wiener said the party should seek to include leftists like the Democratic Socialists of America as well as “moderate Democrats.”
Both candidates called for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be abolished, and for more pathways to citizenship.
Asked about foreign policy, the candidates spoke in generalities.
Chan said, “The U.S. must play a role that prioritizes humanitarian aid and utilizing diplomatic tools.”
Weiner, likewise, said, “We need to be collaborative around the world.”
Chan again called Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide on Tuesday — Wiener has said as much in the past — and both said they would stop sending weapons to the Israeli government. Only Chan has called for a “full arms embargo.”
The forum concluded with lighter questions touching on the pair’s experiences as San Franciscans.
What are the candidates’ favorite Muni lines? The 24-Divisadero for Wiener, the 1-California for Chan. Their favorite San Francisco traditions? Chan named the Autumn Moon Festival, Wiener “gay beach” at Dolores Park.
Their favorite night on the town? Wiener chuckled before answering, “Oasis, and I’m so happy that it’s reopened.” Chan said a “late-night drink” at 540 Bar on Clement Street, in her Richmond District.
Perhaps the most surprising moments of the night, however, came near the end, when the two candidates put down their knives and appeared equanimous: The two have been steady companions on the campaign trail over the past year. During a forum last weekend, they joked that they know each other’s talking points so well, they can mimic each other.
“We have to get along well,” Wiener told the audience on Tuesday night.
“It’s been months,” Chan chimed in.
Wiener turned to Chan in his closing statement. “I want to just say to my opponent, what an honor it is to be on this stage with you.”
Great turnout !
I was the last person in and first person out.
I always try to get last aisle seat closest to the door and exit when the audience is diverted by a good line or whatever.
It was a wonderful time and they wouldn’t take my money at the closing ticket table which is always a good omen.
I went to see Eskenazi who is best moderator in town outside of Willie Brown but Willie’s got Showbiz and Joe is more Mike Wallace with a sense of humor and having done Michael Moritz solo I hope he does Elon Musk next.
Man, Connie Chan’s debating has improved !
And, she couldn’t get a better warmup for what she’ll face in Congress than to go toe to toe with Wiener who is a top flight corporate attorney as I’ve always stressed.
Scott’s a good person and a terrific lawyer but he works for the other side.
Chan emphasized that when she said:
“You’re a Corporat Democrat.”
“I’m a Labor Democrat.”
She’ll be terrific in Congress because she works hard and stays on point.
For the People’s interests and not some corporations.
go Niners !!
h.
No American politician has ever taken corporate money and then spit in the face of the industry that gave them the dough. Scott will not be the first, and he is disingenuous at best about AI money in his campaign. Connie called it last night on this one. She is backed by labor and he is backed by Big Tech.
Wiener is the ultimate pay to play politician. His watered down AI legislation was written by Anthropic. They rewarded him with a 3.5 million dollar donation. Too bad the moderators didn’t call him out on his lie about not receiving a donation from Anthropic. The San Francisco Public Press reported that California Al safety legislation (SB 53), sponsored by State Sen. Scott Wiener, was significantly weakened before passing, with assistance and input from the San Francisco-based Al firm Anthropic and trade groups like TechNet. e
The bill would let the government block a model’s release or use only if it poses a foreseeable, imminent risk of more than $1 billion in damages, or of killing or seriously injuring more than 50 people. The risk must stem from the creation or release of a biological weapon, the model evading its developer’s controls or a cyberattack. The language mirrors that found in California’s Al laws including SB 53, which was signed into law last year.
POLITICO
POLITICO
@politico • Oct 16
Anthropic quietly pitches its own Al safety bill to lawmakers politi.co/4zxDFhl
“Chan, in one of her most pointed remarks of the night, said the race is one between ‘a corporate Democrat” and “a labor Democrat.’ Wiener said it was between ‘a Democrat who has actually taken on and beaten the most powerful corporations in the world,’ and ‘a Democrat who just talks about it’ .”
There you have it folks, the choice is between the best legislator in a generation — who has an outstanding record to back it up — and an inexperienced unqualified do-nothing, naysayer that is, at best, a seat-warmer for a future Pelosi-related challenger down the road.
The irony is that from a national perspective both Wiener and Chan are super liberal Democrats. The difference between them on policies is only significant from a San Francisco perspective. Most of the country sees them both as extreme lefties.
The real difference is that Wiener gets things done and gets on with a wide range of people. Chan is a lightweight who would quite simply be ignored in DC. They are there to fight for resources for the city, and Wiener will be far better at that.
You’re exactly right and there’s a term for it: The Narcissism of Small Differences” — and some people are so invested in this concept that they’ll willing to send a lightweight like Chan to DC and not their best heavyweight fighter which is, without a doubt, Scott Wiener.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences
AI is coming whether anyone wants it or not. The only question is whether the US or China will have supremacy. If China has supremacy, luddites will greatly regret their blind stupidity.
“AI is coming whether anyone wants it or not. The only question is whether the US or China will have supremacy. If China has supremacy, luddites will greatly regret their blind stupidity.” OK Donald Trump!
AI might be coming, but LLMs are not AI, and they have no possible path to AGI, if the latter is even possible, which it probably isn’t.
The idea of a “national AI supremacy” crisis is outright red-scare level paranoid propaganda meant to shovel money, monopoly, and impunity to the Silicon Valley broligarch psychopaths. I trust China far more than I do Thiel, Musk, Altman, Amodei, Gates, Zuck, Lucky, or any similarly psychotic tech overlord freaks.
In the largest salvo in its eternal class war against labor, the ruling class of the U.S. long ago handed China supremacy in manufacturing technology and capacity, the one supremacy that really counts as far as US imperialism and war-mongering goes. Woops.
The US is a hollowed out, financialized paper tiger, a gas station with nukes. AI isn’t going to restore us to our former imperial glory, and thank goodness for that. All AI will do is further exacerbate the chasm between the .01% and people who actually work for a living.
I truly trust The Chinese government with AI more than I trust any American associated with it. At least they’ll use it to solve problems. Apparently the problem American AI is trying to solve is “how do billionaires get rid of all these pesky poor people”?
NOTHING is inevitable. I’m voting for Chan because corporate shills like Wiener are so willing to tweak AI when we want it stopped in its tracks. It is not being built in our interest or “to cure cancer,” but rather to consolidate monopolistic wealth and power, replace labor, and increase control through total surveillance. We didn’t need AI before and we don’t need it now.