How Anthropic uses regulation to shape AI, like Sam Bankman-Fried did crypto

The AI Regulation Playbook

Artificial intelligence company Anthropic is advocating for significant government regulation of advanced AI systems, a strategy that critics liken to the approach taken by Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX. Both figures publicly called for regulatory oversight to ensure safety and clarity within their respective industries, while simultaneously engaging in extensive lobbying efforts. This dual strategy has led to accusations that the regulation is being sought not just for public good, but to solidify market positions and potentially hinder competitors.

Anthropic, known for its Claude chatbot, has warned of existential risks posed by rapidly advancing AI, urging mandatory testing and auditing of powerful models. This stance has been backed by substantial lobbying expenditures and support for pro-regulation advocacy groups. Critics, such as former Trump administration AI advisor David Sacks, have labeled this a "sophisticated regulatory capture strategy based on fear-mongering," aimed at damaging the startup ecosystem. In contrast, Sam Bankman-Fried similarly pushed for a regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies, specifically advocating for oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) through legislation like the Digital Commodities Consumer Protection Act (DCCPA). His efforts were also accompanied by significant political donations, which later became central to his fraud charges.

The Mechanism: Lobbying and Public Advocacy

Anthropic's approach involves a multi-pronged strategy to influence AI policy. The company has directly engaged in lobbying, spending approximately $7 million between 2025 and mid-2026 to advocate for stricter AI rules. Furthermore, Anthropic has allocated $40 million to Public First Action, a 501(c)(4) organization, to promote pro-regulation talking points. This spending aims to shape public and legislative opinion on the necessity of AI guardrails. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has testified before Congress, highlighting "extraordinarily grave threats to US national security" from AI and calling for a mandatory "testing and auditing regime."

The comparison to Sam Bankman-Fried lies in the parallel use of public pronouncements about safety and the need for regulation, coupled with financial influence. Bankman-Fried, before FTX's collapse, frequently spoke about the need for "regulatory oversight and customer protection" and "system safety and soundness" in crypto. He also supported the DCCPA, a bill that some in the crypto industry argued would have benefited large, centralized exchanges like FTX at the expense of smaller competitors. Federal campaign finance records later revealed that Bankman-Fried made substantial contributions to sponsors of such legislation. The core of the criticism against both Anthropic and Bankman-Fried is that their calls for regulation serve a dual purpose: ostensibly ensuring safety while simultaneously creating barriers to entry or advantages for their own entities.

Who is Affected and How

This regulatory push directly impacts the broader artificial intelligence industry, particularly startups and smaller AI labs. Anthropic's proposed regulations, such as mandatory testing and auditing, could impose significant compliance costs and operational hurdles. Critics argue that such measures, if implemented without careful consideration, could stifle innovation and disproportionately burden smaller companies that lack the resources of larger, well-funded entities like Anthropic. For instance, California's SB 53, a bill Anthropic has supported, includes transparency requirements for firms using substantial computational resources, potentially affecting lower-income AI firms even if they are partially exempted based on gross revenue.

Ordinary people could see the development of AI technologies either accelerated or slowed, depending on the regulatory outcomes. If regulations are designed to foster responsible innovation, they might lead to safer and more trustworthy AI systems. However, if they are perceived as creating an unlevel playing field or hindering competition, it could result in fewer AI-driven products and services, or those that are developed might be shaped by the priorities of a few dominant players. The debate also touches on national security and public safety, with proponents arguing that regulation is essential to mitigate risks, while opponents worry about ceding technological advantage to other nations or stifling beneficial advancements.

What Happens Next

The future of AI regulation hinges on how policymakers in Washington respond to these competing narratives and lobbying efforts. Anthropic is likely to continue its advocacy for robust regulatory frameworks, emphasizing safety and national security concerns. This may involve further engagement with legislative bodies, participation in industry-wide safety initiatives like the voluntary agreement signed by tech executives at the White House on September 29, and continued financial backing of advocacy groups. The company maintains that its efforts are genuine and aimed at protecting its customers and the broader ecosystem.

Conversely, critics, including figures like David Sacks and Brian Chau, will likely continue to challenge Anthropic's motives, highlighting potential anti-competitive aspects of proposed regulations. This could lead to increased scrutiny of lobbying activities and a more divided political landscape regarding AI policy. For any significant regulatory changes to be enacted, there would need to be a consensus among lawmakers about the specific risks posed by AI and the most effective means of mitigating them. Should a regulatory framework emerge, its success will depend on its ability to balance safety concerns with the need to foster innovation and competition within the rapidly evolving AI sector. The precedent set by the FTX saga, where regulatory advocacy was intertwined with alleged fraud, casts a shadow, demanding transparency and careful examination of all players' intentions.