The political-tech complex strikes again. Former North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest has launched the “North Carolina Blockchain + AI Initiative,” yet another advocacy group promising to “shape policy” around emerging technologies. This development represents a troubling pattern: failed politicians pivoting to tech advocacy, leveraging their political connections to influence regulation in favor of industry interests rather than public benefit.
“A new coalition the North Carolina Blockchain + AI Initiative has been launched by former Lt. Gov. Dan Forest to help shape policy around blockchain and artificial intelligence. The group aims to unite industry leaders and policymakers as regulation of emerging technologies evolves.” — @gateofwise
Forest’s move follows a well-worn playbook that dates back to the railroad lobbies of the 1800s: establish an official-sounding organization, claim to represent “innovation” and “economic development,” then work behind closed doors to craft regulations that benefit wealthy stakeholders. The only difference now is the technology being exploited.
The Revolving Door Accelerates
This isn’t Forest’s first rodeo with questionable advocacy. As lieutenant governor, he consistently pushed conservative political agendas while building networks within business communities. Now, conveniently, he’s positioned himself as a bridge between those same business interests and the regulatory apparatus.
The timing is particularly suspect. As AI regulation debates intensify globally, former politicians are rushing to establish advocacy positions before comprehensive frameworks emerge. Compare this to the early days of internet regulation in the 1990s, when telecommunications companies hired former FCC commissioners and congressional staffers to influence policy. The result? Decades of regulatory capture that prioritized corporate profits over consumer protection and innovation.
Historically, similar patterns emerged during the Industrial Revolution. Railroad companies hired former government officials to influence land grants and regulatory decisions. The result was massive public subsidies flowing to private companies while workers and communities bore the costs. Today’s AI and blockchain advocacy groups operate from the same strategic handbook.
Global Context Exposes the Urgency
While Forest launches his advocacy group, other nations are taking AI governance seriously. The European Union continues refining comprehensive AI regulations, as evidenced by recent Council agreements to streamline AI rules while maintaining strong oversight mechanisms.
“Today, the Council agreed its position on the proposal to streamline certain rules regarding artificial intelligence (AI). The proposal will: 👉 Increase legal certainty 👉 Make rules more proportionate 👉 Ensure harmonised implementation across member states” — @CY2026EU
Meanwhile, developing nations like Zimbabwe are launching national AI strategies focused on public benefit and economic development for their citizens, not just industry profits.
“Today, I was honoured to join President @edmnangagwa at the launch of Zimbabwe’s National Artificial Intelligence Strategy (2026–2030). This is a new chapter in our digital journey and bold response to the technological era ensuring AI works for every Zimbabwean, in every village and city.” — @TateMavetera
The contrast is stark. While other nations focus on ensuring AI serves public interests, American political figures are establishing advocacy groups that will likely prioritize deregulation and industry-friendly policies.
The Blockchain Red Flag
Forest’s decision to combine blockchain and AI advocacy reveals the grift’s true nature. Blockchain technology, despite years of hype, has failed to deliver meaningful benefits to average consumers. Instead, it’s become synonymous with speculative trading, environmental destruction through energy-intensive mining, and elaborate financial schemes.
By bundling AI with blockchain, Forest’s organization signals its real priority: protecting speculative tech investments rather than fostering genuine innovation. This mirrors the dot-com era’s “incubators” and “accelerators” that promised revolutionary change while primarily enriching early investors and connected insiders.
The historical parallel to 1920s investment trusts is unmistakable. Before the 1929 crash, financial operators created complex investment vehicles that promised exposure to emerging technologies like radio and automobiles. These trusts primarily benefited promoters while leaving ordinary investors holding worthless paper. Today’s blockchain-AI advocacy represents a similar dynamic: politically connected figures positioning themselves to profit from regulatory arbitrage.
What This Really Means
Forest’s initiative represents regulatory capture in real-time. Rather than allowing democratic processes to shape AI governance, industry-connected advocacy groups are working to preempt meaningful oversight. This approach prioritizes short-term profits over long-term societal benefits.
The broader implications extend beyond North Carolina. As AI technology becomes increasingly central to economic and social systems, the battle over regulatory frameworks will determine whether these tools serve public interests or private profit. Forest’s advocacy group signals that powerful interests are mobilizing to ensure the latter outcome.
Citizens and policymakers must recognize these advocacy groups for what they are: sophisticated influence operations designed to protect industry interests at public expense. The time for naive trust in “public-private partnerships” has passed. Real AI governance requires transparency, democratic accountability, and prioritization of societal benefit over political connections and industry profits.