In a political climate often divided on technology and economics, a remarkable consensus has emerged. According to a recent poll conducted by the research firm Verasight, over two-thirds of Americans support a proposal that would give the public a direct ownership stake in the nation's largest artificial intelligence companies. The plan, spearheaded by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, is officially titled the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. The poll found that 69% of respondents backed the core idea: requiring AI companies to transfer 50% of their stock to a fund owned collectively by the American people.
The proposal’s mechanics are straightforward yet transformative. Instead of taxing profits, Sanders’ legislation would impose a one-time 50% tax on the stock of leading AI firms. The shares would then be held in a sovereign wealth fund, with the federal government exercising voting rights and appointing an equal number of representatives to each company’s board. This structure, Sanders explained in a New York Times op-ed, would “block decisions that hurt our citizens and push for policies that help them.” Profits from the fund would be distributed back to the public, creating a direct dividend from the AI boom.
Polling Nuances: The Name Effect
The Verasight poll tested the proposal in two ways: with and without Sanders’ name attached. When the question explicitly mentioned Senator Sanders as the sponsor, overall support dropped slightly to 64%. However, the percentage of respondents who said they “strongly” supported the plan actually increased by 3% when his name was included. This suggests that while Sanders may polarize some voters, his association with the proposal energizes a core base of strong advocates.
This polling nuance highlights the complex relationship between the Vermont senator and the issue of artificial intelligence. Sanders has been described as “awed” by AI, a stance that makes some of his more tech-skeptical followers uneasy. Yet, his concrete policy proposal appears to resonate broadly. The plan taps into a deep well of public anxiety about economic inequality and the concentration of power in the tech sector. With AI poised to reshape industries and potentially eliminate jobs, many Americans are looking for mechanisms to ensure that the benefits are widely shared.
Background: The Rise of AI Populism
Bernie Sanders is not the only politician eyeing AI as a wedge issue, but his approach is uniquely interventionist. The American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act draws inspiration from existing sovereign wealth funds in countries like Norway, which uses oil revenues to fund public services and savings. Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global holds over $1.7 trillion in assets, giving its citizens a tangible stake in the nation’s resource wealth. Sanders’ proposal aims to replicate that model for the intangible resource of artificial intelligence.
The plan also reflects a broader trend of “AI populism” – a political response to the rapid advancement of generative AI and automation. Other proposals include a robot tax, universal basic income funded by AI profits, and mandatory licensing of AI systems. However, Sanders’ stock ownership plan is distinctive because it grants the public not only a share of profits but also a voice in corporate governance. This means the federal government could use its voting shares to influence decisions on layoffs, data privacy, ethical use of AI, and wage policies.
Economic Rationale and Criticism
Supporters argue that the AI industry, like the oil industry or telecommunications, is a natural monopoly or oligopoly. The largest companies – such as OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Anthropic, and Meta – have amassed enormous power through data, computing infrastructure, and talent. The Sanders plan would forcibly redistribute a portion of that equity to the public, creating a new source of revenue for government programs such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
Critics, however, warn of government overreach. Some economists argue that a 50% stock tax would disincentivize innovation and capital formation. Companies might relocate headquarters or restructure to avoid the tax. Others question whether the federal government can effectively manage voting shares in hundreds of firms without succumbing to political interference or cronyism. Legal challenges are also expected, as the plan may face constitutional hurdles regarding the taking of private property.
Despite these objections, the polling data suggests that the American public is hungry for a new approach. The Verasight poll was conducted in June 2026 and surveyed a nationally representative sample of adults. The results were consistent across age groups and political affiliations, though Democrats showed slightly higher support than Republicans. Independents were nearly as supportive as Democrats.
Historical Context: When Government Owns Industry
Government ownership of corporate stock is not unprecedented in the United States. During the 2008 financial crisis, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) gave the U.S. Treasury equity stakes in banks, automakers, and insurance companies. The government later sold those shares, in many cases at a profit. More recently, the U.S. government took a stake in vaccine manufacturers during the COVID-19 pandemic in exchange for research funding.
But Sanders’ proposal is far more ambitious. It targets permanent ownership in a strategic industry, not as a bailout but as a proactive measure to capture value. The plan draws on ideas from the “public ownership” school of economic thought, which argues that essential industries should be managed for the common good. In the context of AI, this means ensuring that the technology’s benefits – increased productivity, lower costs, new capabilities – are distributed to all citizens rather than concentrated among a handful of billionaires and shareholders.
International Examples and Comparisons
Other countries are also exploring how to share AI’s wealth. The European Union has floated the idea of an AI liability fund, while China’s state-led tech ecosystem already gives the government significant control over companies like Baidu and Tencent. Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund, Temasek, owns stakes in numerous technology firms, though it operates as an investment vehicle rather than a mechanism for public dividend distribution.
Sanders’ plan is unique in its explicit coupling of stock ownership with democratic governance. The American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund would be run by a government board, but with a mandate to maximize public value, not just financial returns. This could lead to conflicts, such as whether to prioritize jobs over profits or transparency over trade secrets. Nevertheless, the idea has captured the public imagination.
The Road Ahead: Legislative and Political Prospects
Despite strong public support, the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act faces steep odds in Congress. The bill would require a simple majority in the Senate and House, but it is likely to encounter fierce opposition from the tech industry and free-market Republicans. Some Democrats are also wary, preferring lighter-touch regulation or voluntary commitments from companies. Senator Sanders is known for rallying grassroots support, but even the most popular progressive proposals often stall in a deeply divided Washington.
Nevertheless, the poll results signal a shift in public attitudes. In previous decades, proposals for government ownership of corporate equity might have been dismissed as socialist. Today, with AI threatening to concentrate wealth further, such ideas are gaining mainstream traction. The Verasight poll shows that even when the plan is attributed to Sanders, strong support from his base can offset the drop in overall support. This suggests that the core of the policy – public ownership of AI stock – has broad appeal, regardless of its sponsor.
If the Sanders plan does not pass, variations may appear in other forms. Several state-level initiatives are exploring public AI funds, and the concept of a digital sovereign wealth fund is being discussed in think tanks such as the Roosevelt Institute and the Center for American Progress. The idea may also influence the platforms of future presidential candidates, particularly those seeking to appeal to working-class voters concerned about automation.
Conclusion
The poll from Verasight is a clear indicator that Americans are open to radical solutions for managing the economic disruption of AI. The Sanders plan, with its 50% stock transfer and public governance structure, may seem visionary, but it is now backed by an overwhelming majority of the population. Whether or not it becomes law, its popularity suggests that the debate over AI ownership is just beginning. Future policy battles will likely revolve around how to ensure that the benefits of artificial intelligence are shared by all, not captured by a few. The Sanders proposal offers one template; others will surely follow.
Source:Gizmodo News