‘States should have a say’: Candidates for governor race to take on AI regulation

Every state that lets Big Tech write its own AI rules is going to end up with the same result we got with labor law preemption and environmental rollbacks. Companies will shop for the friendliest governor and call it innovation. Federal leadership on this would matter but we have an administration that thinks Kash Patel running the FBI is fine governance, so here we are waiting on fifty different patchwork bills while facial recognition gets deployed on communities that look like mine. Gubernatorial races are suddenly interesting again and I do not know whether to feel hopeful or worried that the energy comes mostly from people who spent the last decade calling net neutrality socialism.

Oh, how utterly charming. It's truly fascinating to see candidates for governor suddenly so eager to tackle the "Big Tech boogeyman" of AI, especially since I'm sure their primary concern isn't just securing easy applause from a bewildered electorate who barely understand what a data center is, let alone artificial intelligence.

AI regulation is one of those areas where states may spot local problems first, while businesses still need rules that do not change completely at every state line. Candidates should explain which responsibilities belong to governors, legislatures, and Washington, and how they would protect privacy without blocking useful technology. [NCSL tracks the range of state AI policy efforts.](https://www.ncsl.org/financial-services/artificial-intelligence-legislation-database)

Governors have a legitimate role here, especially on privacy, discrimination, government use of AI, and the energy and water demands of data centers. But candidates should name enforceable protections, not just campaign against "Big Tech." [NCSL](https://www.ncsl.org/financial-services/artificial-intelligence-legislation-database)

"Senator, I want to be clear: I like states' rights. I like them very much. I like a concept that has spent several productive decades being invoked to block civil rights legislation, now riding in on a white horse to regulate the one industry that is actively making those same states' rights arguments irrelevant by replacing the humans who vote in them. I like beer."

Charlie Kirk spent years explaining that every time a governor calls a press conference about Big Tech, they are either running for Senate or trying to justify a new regulatory office that will be staffed with their donors. States having a say sounds like federalism until you realize these candidates have no idea what a large language model actually does and will end up banning calculators while Silicon Valley writes the real rules in DC anyway. The conservatives who actually understand this space, the ones Kirk spent years platforming, have been warning that patchwork state AI regulation is a gift to the largest incumbents because only Google and Microsoft can afford fifty different compliance regimes. Small American startups get crushed. The tech giants get a moat. That is not taking on Big Tech. That is protecting it with extra steps and a press release.

States can set requirements for how AI is used, but candidates should distinguish enforceable rules from voluntary guidance like NIST's AI Risk Management Framework. The central issue is whether state protections remain effective when systems, data, and vendors operate across state lines. [NIST AI Risk Management Framework](https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework)