![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Hyden-1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
If bad ideas could serve as an energy source, then Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, might become America\u2019s most valuable commodity.<\/p>\n
Over the years, he has proven to be a wellspring of perhaps well-intentioned but wholly inadvisable policy positions.<\/p>\n
\u201cI favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries,\u201d he announced in 1976<\/a>.<\/p>\n It was the kind of platform you\u2019d expect from someone enamored with the Soviet Union, and in fact, Sanders honeymooned there<\/a> in 1988 and gushed over communists\u2019 supposed triumphs. The Soviet Union collapsed in utter failure three years later. That didn\u2019t stop Sanders, who has remained a cheerleader of government approaches to stamp out free markets.<\/p>\n Instead of stumping for communism, he waves the banner of its rebrand \u2014 \u201cdemocratic socialism.\u201d In some ways, this is little more than putting lipstick on a pig. There are the same ideas, just framed slightly differently, which brings me to Sanders\u2019 latest problematic proposal \u2014 what sounds like nationalizing the burgeoning artificial intelligence industry.<\/p>\n \u201cI will soon be introducing the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act,\u201d Sanders declared<\/a> in a New York Times opinion piece. \u201cIf passed, this legislation would do two crucial things. First, it would give the public a direct role in determining the future of this technology,\u201d and \u201cThe federal government would have the power [\u2026] to block decisions that hurt our citizens and to push for policies that help them.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSecond,\u201d Sanders continued, \u201cthis legislation would guarantee that the trillions of dollars potentially generated by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us \u2014 not simply to make the richest people in the world even richer.\u201d There is a lot to unpack there and practically all of it is bad.<\/p>\n To begin with, putting the government in charge of business decisions will result in spectacular failure. Congress often moves at a snail\u2019s pace and hasn\u2019t balanced a budget<\/a> in a quarter-century. These are not the hallmarks of a successful business.<\/p>\n Never mind that. The government is also not composed of AI experts who know how to run technology companies better than the industry\u2019s pioneers. The government would create hulking bureaucracies that would stumble, stifle and undermine once-thriving businesses.<\/p>\n Look at the Soviet Union for evidence of this. With its central planning and bureaucratic structures, the communist state struggled to innovate in the way that tech companies must. The U.S. far outpaced the USSR and developed advanced computing systems \u2014 leaving the Soviets technologically behind and largely unable to catch up without stealing and reverse-engineering American technology.<\/p>\n Despite that, Sanders wants to seize majority stakes in numerous tech companies and wrestle control of them from their founders. But what justification does he have for such a drastic move?<\/p>\n \u201cFor the most part, tech oligarchs have fed [\u2026] knowledge into their AI models without permission, without acknowledgment, without compensation,\u201d Sanders explained. \u201cIn other words, the creative work of millions of people [\u2026] has essentially been stolen by some of the wealthiest people in the world. It\u2019s time for us to reclaim it. Since AI is built on the collective knowledge of humanity, the wealth it generates must benefit humanity,\u201d Sanders asserted.<\/p>\n Long story short, according to Sanders: Entrepreneurs \u2013 who have created paradigm-shifting innovations that will generate a lot of wealth \u2013 don\u2019t deserve to reap the benefits or drive business decisions. This is misguided and immoral because this is, in essence, theft. The government would be stealing what someone else spent years creating.<\/p>\n This seizure is OK per Sanders\u2019 thinking. After all, he claims without providing any evidence that AI companies stole the information and data that it relies on. The truth is that AI draws on publicly available sources found across the internet. And it is limited by paywalls, licensing issues and so forth, although there is ongoing debate and even litigation<\/a> attempting to determine what, if any, copyrighted material contributes to AI models.<\/p>\n In that respect, it is not much different than anyone browsing the web, or going to the library, reading books and then synthesizing the findings.<\/p>\n In fairness, Sanders displayed a degree of humility within his opinion piece. \u201cNeedless to say,\u201d he wrote, \u201cI recognize that for the government to have a major stake in a company, particularly one for which AI is only part of its business, is complicated. More details \u2014 including the specific spending priorities and the mechanics of implementation \u2014 will be included in the legislation I unveil in the coming weeks.\u201d<\/p>\n That implies Sanders doesn\u2019t even know how his legislation would work yet, which isn\u2019t a strong start for him, but it is straight out of the Soviet playbook: seize the means of production and figure out the details later. Once again, Sanders has tried to resuscitate an old, failed policy, but America is best served if Congress lets this one die.<\/p>\n Marc Hyden is the senior director of state government affairs at the R Street Institute. You can follow him on X at @marc_hyden.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"If bad ideas could serve as an energy source, then Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, might become America\u2019s most…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":71607,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[24,25,3330,597],"class_list":["post-71606","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-ai","tag-ai","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-column","tag-government"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71606","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=71606"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71606\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/71607"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71606"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71606"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71606"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}