Zach Moffatt and Josh Vlasto; Illustration by Brian Lutz for Politico…
As someone interested in public affairs matters surrounding AI and “Big Tech” issues, I read with interest a deeply-reported recent piece in Politico Magazine by Calder McHugh entitled, “Big Tech’s Money Men Don’t Care About the Backlash.”
I then put it aside to think about — not because of the subject matter itself, but because agreeing to sit for an on-the-record interview on a topic so fraught with potential downsides and “things that can go wrong” requires a sharp interview strategy, war-gaming likely questions, and a level of preparation uncommon to most media interviews.
From being around D.C. and New York State politics, I’m familiar with the two strategists the subject of the interview — Republican, Zach Moffatt and Democrat, Josh Vlasto — but have never met nor spoken to either.
I’ll be the first to say that if Politico approached me about agreeing to an on-the-record concerning a PAC launched with more than $100 million from major Silicon Valley interests like 16z’s co-founder Marc Andreessen and OpenAI’s president Greg Brockman — with the stated intent of defeating candidates who favor the strictest AI regulatory enforcement — my bias would be on the side of side-stepping the piece.
All things being equal, the downside risk exceeds the upside in my mind, unless Moffatt and Vlasto had other pre-agreement insights or had already negotiated favorable reporting ground rules. But there’s also the flip side to consider: What’s the risk if you decide not to participate in a piece that’s being reported and written anyway? Your side of the story is nowhere to be found — and if it is, likely distorted or misrepresented by those wishing you ill.
Regardless, they knew what they were doing. By any standard, this piece turned up roses for Moffatt, Vlasto and their Leading the Future backers.
The general premise of the piece, stated at the outset, is these two consultants — one GOP, the other Democratic — are “at the helm of the Death Star” that will attempt to “obliterate” the pro-regulatory “Doomers” — many of whom are parenthetically fomenting anti-data center hysteria in key races across the country.
The piece then basically proceeds to explain how Leading the Future” is actually the David in any David versus Goliath story; how “formidable” their record has been thus far against their opposition; and detailing how they’re going about achieving their goal to “reshape the politics of AI and marginalize the technology’s skeptics and its industry opponents.”
Sure, Moffatt and Vlasto take some hits, and some of the reporting is pejorative. But I’d rate this approximately 70/30 in their favor in a piece that could have easily turned out 20/80 or 30/70 if they’d miscalculated or, using the technical term, “F’d up.”
Concludes the piece:
It is one of the most intoxicating environments for a couple of political veterans who don’t mind a little bit of risk: a giant issue, growing in salience, with its political contours not yet defined. Vlasto and Moffatt have been accused of many things. What you can’t call them is afraid of the fight… Their checkbook is large, their ambitions are titanic and their work is still beginning. They want nothing less than to change America’s future and shape the country’s most prominent politicians’ views on the development of one of the world’s most consequential technologies.
“This is the first inning of many,” concludes Moffatt. “November is a stop on the journey. It’s part of a larger destination.”
I’d be high-fiving after reading the conclusion.
As someone over the years whose spent a lot of time war gaming interview strategies — as well as analyzing the “plumbing” of reporting and how and why enterprise pieces get stitched together in a certain manner — this is a job exceedingly well done. Besides their on the record skill, they obviously worked effectively on background, deep background and off the record.
And while I have no way of knowing, I suspect one of two strategists had done business with this reporter in the past — which, contrary to what some may think, guarantees you nothing about an article’s outcome. Yet, you would have insight into the reporter’s biases and background, and had perhaps built-up a level of prior trust that bolsters, on the margins, accepting your point of view in the broader narrative. But regardless, the operatives’ collective perspective cuts through the clutter.
But my favorite line of the piece has nothing to do with the story-at large — it has to do with the rough and tumble of New York York politics, my own home state.
The reporting recounts how Vlasto rose through the ranks of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s office to eventually become chief-of-staff before leaving in 2014:
But he didn’t completely leave Cuomo-land, returning as an informal adviser to the governor as scandals over sexual misconduct engulfed him in 2020. During a 2021 deposition with the New York Attorney General’s Office, Vlasto was forced to recount an incident early on in Cuomo’s first term in which the governor called him an “incompetent asshole” in front of staffers. And yet, befitting his role as a hard-nosed political strategist, he didn’t take it personally. Certainly, he’s heard worse.
Vlasto’s chill response: “Albany is a tough place to work and get things done.”
Indeed.