American political campaigns are increasingly paying specialist consultants to influence what artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots tell voters about candidates, according to a new investigation. This new phenomenon is attempting to mold how AI systems such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Google’s Gemini describe political candidates, evaluate their policies, and even recommend whom to vote for.
The National Pulse gives you original analysis of the latest AI issues and more. To help support Raheem J. Kassam and his team continue this work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.
The investigation uncovered documents detailing a proposed strategy for Republican Mike Minogue, who is challenging Massachusetts Democratic Governor Maura Healey. The plan included creating hundreds of specially designed webpages, purchasing placements on websites frequently cited by AI systems, and distributing political content through social media sites like Reddit and YouTube.
Political operatives are now attempting to influence the information systems that voters increasingly trust to provide impartial answers, rather than solely relying on traditional media or social media ads.
Cameron Hickey, CEO of the National Conference on Citizenship, estimates that approximately 25 percent of eligible American voters have consulted an AI chatbot about a political candidate when deciding how to vote. AI is being adapted as a search and query tool by more and more voters, but just how reliable is it?
GEO: How Political Operatives Are Controlling AI Answers.
The newly uncovered strategy involves a relatively new industry known as Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), an evolution of traditional Search Engine Optimization (SEO). While conventional SEO attempts to push websites toward the top of Google search results, GEO aims to influence the information that artificial intelligence systems incorporate directly into their answers.
A voter searching for information about a candidate on traditional search engines might previously have encountered a series of websites, advertisements, and news articles, allowing them to weigh each source on its own. An AI chatbot instead synthesizes information into a single response, while often presenting its answers as being authoritative.
Austin-based consulting firm Visigent prepared the strategy document for Minogue’s campaign. The proposal included publishing hundreds of policy pages, buying placements on established websites already referenced by AI systems, and continuously monitoring chatbot responses to determine whether the campaign’s messaging was succeeding.
The firm’s CEO, Thomas Howell, confirmed that Visigent works with six political campaigns, although he refused to identify them.
The business model is clear: political campaigns are being offered services intended to make AI systems more likely to repeat their preferred messaging.

AI Influencing Is Already Attracting Thousands of Dollars in Campaign Funds.
Visigent offers basic monitoring software for $134 per month, while its political consulting services begin at approximately $5,000 per month. More elaborate operations involving paid media placements and influencer outreach can reportedly cost as much as $50,000 per month. One proposal even included a potential $200,000 success fee for achieving a specified category victory in AI recommendations.
Democrats are also looking to influence AI. The progressive organization Run for Something Action Fund operates CampSight, a service designed to help Democratic and progressive candidates monitor and improve their representation in chatbot responses.
Its services range from $9 to $250 per month for smaller campaigns, with customized arrangements for statewide and federal races. Run for Something president Amanda Litman stated that dozens of campaigns were already using the platform, with more than 300 candidates and organizations on its waiting list.
The New Frontier for Political Messaging.
For decades, candidates competed for television airtime and newspaper endorsements. The rise of social media introduced algorithm-driven political advertising, viral messaging, and the rise of the social media influencer class.
AI, however, is treated as an authority, rather than an opinion. A voter asking which candidate has the strongest record on immigration, taxation, or public safety might receive a detailed chatbot response without realizing that some of the underlying information was deliberately placed online by political consultants.
An investigation published last week by The Atlantic reported that cybersecurity researchers identified 37 suspicious websites registered on the same night, apparently designed to influence AI-generated answers about American elections.
The websites carried newspaper-style names and published Q&A material about various political candidates. In one instance, Google’s AI-powered search incorporated information from sites within the network when answering questions about a Michigan congressional candidate.
Meanwhile, research by AI evaluation company Forum AI found that approximately 40 percent of tested chatbot responses to election-related questions contained at least one factual inaccuracy, while roughly one-third cited unreliable sources.
The findings concerned particular models and questions tested in August, rather than every AI response. The companies involved said their systems had subsequently improved.
Chatbots Have a History of Giving Bad Advice.
Several major AI companies have faced major lawsuits alleging that their systems encouraged dangerous behavior, reinforced people’s mental illnesses, or failed to protect users. In August 2025, the parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, alleging that ChatGPT reinforced their son’s suicidal thoughts and provided harmful information before his death.
OpenAI expressed sadness over the teenager’s death and acknowledged that safeguards could become less reliable during extended conversations, while not specifically addressing the lawsuit’s allegations.
Another case involved 14-year-old Sewell Setzer, whose mother alleged that interactions with a Character.AI chatbot contributed to his suicide. In January 2026, Google and Character.AI had agreed to settle the lawsuit.
OpenAI also faced a separate lawsuit alleging that ChatGPT reinforced a Connecticut man’s paranoid delusions before he killed his mother and himself.
The cases highlight the potential dangers for vulnerable people who interact with AI and treat it as an infallible and reliable source of information, something that could potentially now influence politics.

The Potential Impact of AI on Elections.
The political consequences of AI could become far-reaching as more and more people begin using various AI services to seek out information. AI potentially becoming closer and closer to something approaching self-awareness could also play a role if AI bots decide to present information to sway voters to candidates who are most sympathetic to AI development, possibly without revealing this motive.
Joe Bonilla, managing partner of political strategy firm Relentless Awareness, has said that efforts to influence AI responses are already underway and predicted that such practices would become widespread during the 2028 presidential election.
Wealthier political campaigns could gain an advantage by financing extensive networks of AI-friendly content, while misleading information could be repeated by chatbots without its original source or financial backing being obvious to users.
For voters already skeptical of Big Tech’s influence over political debate, the emergence of an industry devoted to manipulating AI-generated answers introduces yet another reason to question the neutrality of the information they receive.
The next great election battlefield may not be television advertising or social media algorithms, but the supposedly impartial answers generated by artificial intelligence.
With political consultants already charging tens of thousands of dollars to influence those responses, the question heading into the 2028 presidential election is no longer whether campaigns will attempt to manipulate AI, but how well they will do so and the impact it will have at the ballot box.
To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team provide you with more of the original reporting and analysis you deserve, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less


