Bernie Sanders’ AI Wealth Fund Plan: A Recipe for Corporate Influence

Lisa Park, News Directory 3 staff reporter
The senator’s proposal to seize 50% ownership of AI companies faces scrutiny from co-authors of Rewiring Democracy, who argue alternative strategies better balance public interest with corporate accountability.

The debate over democratic control of artificial intelligence intensified this week as Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a U.S. sovereign wealth fund to acquire 50% stakes in AI firms like OpenAI and Anthropic. The plan, outlined in a New York Times op-ed, aims to establish “democratic control over the AI companies” while redistributing profits to address wealth concentration. However, the authors of Rewiring Democracy—a book examining AI’s impact on global governance—disagree with the approach, advocating for taxation and public AI initiatives instead.

Sanders’ proposal hinges on two core arguments: first, that public ownership would allow the government to “block decisions that hurt our citizens” and “push for policies that help them.” Second, it would redirect “trillions of dollars potentially generated by AI” to public programs. The senator frames this as a response to “the concentration of power, wealth and control among tech oligarchs,” a claim the Rewiring Democracy authors broadly endorse.

“Public influence over AI development is essential,” the book’s co-authors write, noting parallels to government intervention in industries like automotive and pharmaceuticals. “But the sovereign wealth fund approach risks entangling corporate profit with public interest in ways that could undermine its goals.”

The authors highlight several potential pitfalls. Public ownership, they argue, might incentivize regulators to “clear regulations, permit worker exploitation, suppress competition, and encourage AI adoption regardless of responsibility.” They point to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, which holds stakes in oil companies, as a cautionary example. Despite its size, the fund has not driven environmental policies, instead “inhibiting climate action” due to the government’s reliance on those corporations.

“A sovereign wealth fund could make corporate influence on the government more likely,” the authors caution. “It risks turning public assets into tools for corporate interests rather than safeguards for the public.”

Instead, the book proposes two alternatives: energy taxation on datacenters and a public AI option. The former, inspired by Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposals, would tax AI companies for the social costs of their technologies. The latter, modeled after Switzerland’s Apertus project, envisions publicly developed AI systems that set a baseline for private-sector accountability.

Apertus, built by Swiss researchers using renewable energy and compliant with EU regulations, demonstrates how public AI could drive ethical standards. While it lags behind commercial models in performance, it excels in transparency and sustainability. “It suggests public institutions can apply competitive pressure for responsible corporate behavior,” the authors write.

The co-authors acknowledge Sanders’ political acumen but question why he favors a sovereign wealth fund over these alternatives. They note his argument that “the Trump administration and AI billionaires are aligned,” a claim that could explain his focus on direct intervention. However, they argue that AI companies may support the plan to “get back more in favorable government policies,” creating a cycle of mutual benefit rather than public accountability.

“The sovereign wealth fund is a high-risk strategy,” the authors conclude. “Taxation and public AI offer more direct, less compromised pathways to reshaping AI in the public interest.”

The debate underscores broader tensions in AI governance. As OpenAI and Anthropic approach trillion-dollar valuations, critics warn of a “transfer of wealth” from users to corporate owners. The Rewiring Democracy authors argue that public ownership risks replicating the same power imbalances it seeks to fix.

For now, Sanders’ proposal remains a political rallying point, while the book’s alternatives await broader political traction. The outcome could shape how democracies balance innovation, equity, and control in the AI era.

Source: Rewiring Democracy (co-authored by Lisa Park and Nathan E. Sanders), The Guardian
Discovery date: 2026-06-12
Relevant topics: AI, democracy, LLM, Rewiring Democracy