Sanders proposes 50% public ownership of AI companies

What happened?

Independent Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a bill proposing that the U.S. government own 50% of the shares of artificial intelligence companies. According to Tom's Hardware, the initiative would create a public fund that would receive half of the shares of any AI company exceeding certain revenue or capitalization thresholds. The dividends generated from that stake would be distributed annually to all U.S. citizens, with an estimated payment of $1,000 per person.

Most surprisingly, Vice President JD Vance, in statements reported by the same source, has said that the Trump administration supports the idea of giving Americans a stake in AI companies, although he prefers a 'pre-distribution' model rather than handing out cash directly. This indicates there could be unusual bipartisan support for some form of public ownership in the sector.

Why is this important?

Artificial intelligence is shaping up to be the most transformative technology of the 21st century, with the potential to generate massive wealth but also to displace jobs and increase inequality. Sanders' proposal directly addresses the question of who benefits from that wealth. If implemented, it would radically change the ownership structure of the world's most valuable tech companies.

Vance's endorsement suggests that the idea of public ownership could gain traction beyond the progressive left, increasing the chances that it becomes a central topic in political debate in the coming years. However, the bill faces enormous obstacles: AI companies like OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft would likely fiercely oppose it, and the constitutional viability of partial expropriation is uncertain.

Consequences and analysis

If the proposal advanced, the consequences would be profound:

• For AI companies: They would be forced to cede half of their capital to a public fund, reducing control by founders and investors. This could discourage investment and innovation in the U.S., pushing startups to other countries.
• For citizens: They would receive an annual dividend that could partially offset job losses from automation. However, the $1,000 payment is modest compared to the potential value of AI.
• For the market: Creating a massive public fund of AI stocks could distort financial markets and give the government unprecedented power over companies.

Historically, similar proposals for 'basic income' or 'sovereign wealth fund' have failed in the U.S., but the current context of the AI boom could change the political calculus. The comparison with Norway's sovereign wealth fund, funded by oil revenues, is inevitable: an AI fund could generate income for future generations.

What readers should know

It is important to note that this is an initial bill, with little chance of passing in the short term. However, Sanders' proposal and Vance's comment indicate that the debate over distributing AI benefits is gaining traction. Investors should watch for potential regulatory changes affecting AI company ownership. For the general public, it is a reminder that decisions about who controls AI will directly impact their economic well-being.

"The fact that both Sanders and Vance are discussing public ownership shows that the bipartisan consensus on letting tech companies keep all AI profits is cracking," notes Tom's Hardware's analysis.

In summary, while Sanders' proposal is unlikely to become law soon, it marks a milestone in the debate over AI governance and the distribution of its fruits.