House Government Operations & Military Affairs hears testimony on S 23 requiring disclosure for synthetic media in elections

The House Government Operations & Military Affairs committee heard testimony on S 23, a bill proposing disclosure requirements for synthetic media used to influence elections during a committee hearing (date not specified).

Supporters and state officials told the committee the bill is intended to preserve election integrity by requiring notice when images, video or audio have been synthetically produced to depict a person saying or doing something they did not actually do.

Leslie Wells, assistant attorney general and chief of the General Counsel and Administrative Law Division at the Vermont Attorney General's Office, told the committee the Attorney General's Office supports the initiative and that the proposed statutory placement would be in 17 V.S.A. chapter 35. Wells said the office “supports initiatives that ensure transparency to voters” and noted that the bill “does provide additional tools for us in terms of seeking injunctive relief.”

Wells described how the Attorney General's Office investigates election-related complaints: a campaign finance committee within the office (currently staffed by five attorneys and two paralegals) reviews incoming complaints, makes initial determinations of merit, seeks information from town clerks or the Secretary of State’s office when appropriate, and—if facts indicate serious misconduct—can refer matters to the office's Criminal Division or the U.S. Attorney’s Office for prosecution. Wells cautioned the office will “proceed with caution” before referring matters for prosecution and said that, while Vermont receives relatively few election-integrity complaints, adding S 23 would increase the office’s workload without an attached new position.

Elana Beller, who leads Public Citizen’s state legislative work on artificial intelligence, testified in strong support of S 23 and walked the committee through the bill’s key elements and common choices in other states. Beller said the bill is a disclosure requirement, not a ban, and that its definition of deepfake focuses on content “realistic enough to a reasonable person that they would believe that it is real” and that “shows someone doing or saying something that they never actually did in real life.” She cited international and U.S. examples—including an audio deepfake in Slovakia circulated two days before an election and robocalls using a synthetic voice in New Hampshire—to illustrate the potential harm when synthetic media spreads close to voting.

Beller told the committee that roughly two-thirds of states that have addressed this issue use a 90-day window before an election for heightened rules; she said 90 days is the most common window among states that have adopted similar laws. She recommended two technical changes to S 23: (1) replace the bill’s font-size requirement for on-screen disclosures with a standard such as “a size that’s easily readable by the average viewer” to avoid impractical results when large-on-screen graphics appear, and (2) add the word “distribute” to the satire/parody exemption so the exemption covers both producing and distributing parody content. Beller also recommended clarifying that paid broadcasters who claim an exemption must make a good-faith effort to determine whether content is a deepfake.

Committee members asked about the scope of the bill’s definition, the 90-day window, and how enforcement would work for out-of-state actors. Wells said enforcement would depend on the facts of a complaint and that particularly egregious or criminal conduct could be referred to criminal investigators and law enforcement. Beller emphasized the bill’s focus on knowingly distributed synthetic media with intent to influence an election and explained that disclosure requirements are generally used to minimize First Amendment concerns while giving voters accurate context.

No formal vote on S 23 was recorded during the session; the committee took witness testimony and posed questions. The committee concluded the day’s witnesses had finished and indicated it would consider written follow-up comments and potential technical edits to the bill.