Lawler, Conley go head to head over AI, Big Tech & data centers | NY-17 debate
During a debate for NY-17, candidates Lawler and Conley clashed over federal regulation of AI and data center expansion. The discussion included accusations of industry ties and differing stances on data center moratoriums in Rockland County, specifically a proposed expansion in Orangetown. Lawler emphasized local control and mentioned enacted moratoriums in Orangetown and East Fishkill, while Conley criticized his voting record on state regulation and tax breaks for data centers.
During a heated debate for New York's 17th Congressional District, candidates Mike Lawler and Kate Connley engaged in a sharp exchange concerning the regulation of artificial intelligence and the expansion of data centers. The discussion began with concerns over AI's potential dangers and the need for federal regulation, with Connley criticizing Lawler for voting against allowing states to regulate AI, accusing him of being influenced by "big tech" donations.
Lawler countered, highlighting his own legislative efforts to regulate AI and accusing Connley of being the "AI candidate for the AI industry," alleging she holds a "no-show job" for big tech. The debate then turned to data center development within the district. Connley blamed Lawler for the construction of five data centers in Rockland County, with three more planned, claiming he opposed a moratorium on data centers and voted for a bill that provided significant tax breaks to data center companies while reducing regulation. She expressed support for a moratorium on data centers.
Lawler defended himself, stating the initial data centers were built before his time in Congress and were unrelated to AI, serving the financial industry post-9/11. He emphasized his support for local control over zoning decisions, citing that Orangetown and East Fishkill had already implemented moratoriums, which he supported. Connley, however, reiterated her criticism of Lawler's voting record on state regulation, arguing his actions contradicted his claims of supporting local and state decision-making.