The California man behind a pair of AI-related ballot measures that appeared aimed at OpenAI has withdrawn the proposals – a move that came immediately after Sam Altman’s firm asked a local watchdog to investigate him.
As The Post exclusively reported, OpenAI’s lawyers filed a complaint with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission on Monday that referenced East Bay native Alexander Oldham and cited “serious questions” about his potential motives.
Oldham, a self-described “nobody” in the AI policy world, filed proposals that, if approved, would have empower state officials to regulate major AI firms.
The complaint arose after The Post revealed that Oldham is the stepbrother of Zoe Blumenfeld, a senior employee at OpenAI’s chief rival Anthropic, and he also has ties to tech entrepreneur Guy Ravine, who has waged a bitter legal battle with OpenAI over who came up with the idea for the company.
Oldham said he filed paperwork to withdraw the measures on Tuesday “due to threats and intimidation from primarily OpenAI” – an apparent reference to the FPPC complaint.
“I was naive,” Oldham said in an interview with Politico. “I don’t want any more negative consequences because I was stupid enough to think that I could just put an idea out for people to look at in today’s world.”
Oldham also told the outlet that he had simply forgotten that his stepsister worked for Anthropic. He has vehemently denied that either Blumenfeld or Ravine had any involvement in crafting the measures.
“I didn’t even think of her,” Oldham said. “It is just a pure coincidence that she works for Anthropic, like I honestly didn’t even clock that.”
Oldham previously told The Post that he used AI chatbots to craft the ballot measures and did not speak with any lawyers or outside consultants before filing them with the California attorney general’s office.
He has insisted the measures were not targeted at OpenAI.
Nonetheless, in the complaint to the FPPC, OpenAI’s attorneys alleged that they “appear to be designed to impose complex and unnecessary regulatory burdens on OpenAI.”
“Experts stated and warned that the initiatives’ language is surgically tailored to target OpenAI’s unique public benefit corporation structure and could empower regulators to single out specific companies rather than set industry-wide standards — all while Mr. Oldham maintains ties to a businessman with a long-running dispute against OpenAI. These connections raise serious questions about who is really behind this effort,” the complaint states.
OpenAI also asked the watchdog to examine whether Oldham had any ties to a nonprofit called Coalition for AI Nonprofit Integrity (CANI), which publicly backing a separate ballot proposal filed by Poornima Ramarao, the mother of an ex-OpenAI employee-turned-whistleblower who was ruled to have died by suicide, that aims to reverse OpenAI’s restructuring.
OpenAI alleges that the three measures had “unmistakable formatting similarities, suggesting that they were drafted by the same individuals.”
Oldham has denied any connection to CANI.
“I thought basically, it gets seen by people, and they’d like it, or it just wouldn’t … and it’d just be whatever,” Oldham told Politico. “My main thing is, I’m afraid that a big world of AI is a big world of zero accountability,”
OpenAI previously accused CANI of obscuring its funding and violating state lobbying laws requiring public disclosures. The company has also accused CANI of possibly being a front for Elon Musk, who is currently suing OpenAI for abandoning its nonprofit mission.
Oldham did not return The Post’s request for further comment.
When reached for comment, OpenAI attorney Brian Hauck said “recent reports questioning the personal ties and motivations of other AI ballot measure proponents are concerning.”
“Voters shouldn’t have play detective when mystery donors stay in shadows,” Hauck said in a statement. “If they won’t disclose who’s behind it, voters can’t put their trust in it. Measures that can’t be defended openly don’t belong on the ballot. We respectfully ask the FPPC to encourage full candor and transparency so the public can evaluate these efforts on their merits.”
In his original statement to The Post, Oldham said hadn’t “been in touch with Guy Ravine in nearly a decade and I have not been in touch with Zoe in more than two years. This initiative was filed, created, and funded by me.”
Anthropic also denied any connection, stating it “has had no involvement in, coordination with, or knowledge of any ballot proposals filed by Alexander Oldham, and the company does not support either proposal.”
Ravine vehemently denied that he had colluded with Oldham in any way or had any foreknowledge about the ballot measures, a sentiment echoed by Oldham.
“I have had no involvement in his initiative,” Ravine said. “I have not been in contact with Alex Oldham in approximately 10 years. My only connection to him is that his mother was an investor in a company I was involved with over a decade ago – a tenuous link at best.”
