We demonstrate a proof-of-concept of a large language model conductingcorporate lobbying related activities. An autoregressive large language model(OpenAI's text-davinci-003) determines if proposed U.S. Congressional bills arerelevant to specific public companies and provides explanations and confidencelevels. For the bills the model deems as relevant, the model drafts a letter tothe sponsor of the bill in an attempt to persuade the congressperson to makechanges to the proposed legislation. We use hundreds of novel ground-truthlabels of the relevance of a bill to a company to benchmark the performance ofthe model, which outperforms the baseline of predicting the most common outcomeof irrelevance. We also benchmark the performance of the previous OpenAI GPT-3model (text-davinci-002), which was the state-of-the-art model on many academicnatural language tasks until text-davinci-003 was recently released. Theperformance of text-davinci-002 is worse than a simple benchmark. These resultssuggest that, as large language models continue to exhibit improved naturallanguage understanding capabilities, performance on lobbying related tasks willcontinue to improve. Longer-term, if AI begins to influence law in a mannerthat is not a direct extension of human intentions, this threatens the criticalrole that law as information could play in aligning AI with humans. Initially,AI is being used to simply augment human lobbyists for a small portion of theirdaily tasks. However, firms have an incentive to use less and less humanoversight over automated assessments of policy ideas and the writtencommunication to regulatory agencies and Congressional staffers. The corequestion raised is where to draw the line between human-driven and AI-drivenpolicy influence.