Democratic Fundraisers Run AI Lobbying Trips for Congress, Sludge Reports

Democratic fundraising consultants working for Senate campaigns, including those of Sen. Jacky Rosen and Rep. Haley Stevens, also manage a nonprofit that has provided Google, Meta, Palantir, and other artificial intelligence companies with direct access to congressional staff who regulate their industry.

The Innovative Future Collective (IFC), founded by Democratic consultants Ashley Kennedy and Tonya Fulkerson, has spent the past year organizing industry-guided tours of major AI companies for congressional aides. The trips, which include briefings from company policy executives, have been offered to committee counsels and chiefs of staff involved in AI legislation. While IFC describes these visits as “educational,” critics argue they serve as a lobbying channel for the AI industry.

The nonprofit does not publicly disclose its donors, but Google and Amazon have listed IFC among the political and policy organizations they fund in their own disclosure reports. The trips have included visits to Google, Meta, Amazon, Palantir, Anduril, and other key players in the AI sector. According to IFC, the programs focus on “education” and “do not engage in advocacy.”

Critics, however, question whether such access constitutes indirect lobbying, especially as the AI industry pushes for federal regulation that could preempt state laws. The tours often include discussions on federal AI policy with company executives, raising concerns about undue influence on lawmakers and their staff.

IFC’s leadership has close ties to Democratic campaigns. Kennedy and Fulkerson are partners at the consulting firm Bold Blue Consulting, which works with Sen. Rosen’s campaign, as well as Rep. Stevens’ and other Democratic candidates. Their firm also manages ActBlue, the dominant Democratic fundraising platform.

The tours have drawn scrutiny as Congress considers AI regulation. Some lawmakers have expressed concern over the influence of corporate interests in shaping policy. While IFC maintains that the visits are purely educational, the participation of major AI companies and the lack of transparency regarding funding sources have fueled debate over potential conflicts of interest.

The organization’s approach contrasts with traditional lobbying, as it operates through nonprofit channels rather than direct corporate engagement. Still, the access it provides to congressional staff—particularly those drafting AI legislation—raises questions about the balance between industry outreach and regulatory independence.

IFC has not responded to multiple requests for comment on its funding sources or the nature of its programs. The organization’s activities highlight the growing intersection between political fundraising, nonprofit advocacy, and corporate influence in Washington.