Committee hears testimony on S.23 requiring disclosure of synthetic media in election materials

The House Committee on Government Operations & Military Affairs heard testimony on S.23, a bill that would require a mandatory disclosure when synthetic or AI‑manipulated media is used in campaign materials within 90 days of an election.

Secretary of State Elections Director Sean Chan said the office supports “the disclosure, not the prohibition” in S.23 and highlighted the bill’s disclosure language and enforcement provisions. Chan read the bill’s required statement for campaign materials as, quote, “the media has been created or intentionally manipulated by digital technology or artificial intelligence,” end quote, and said the bill creates a path for affected candidates to seek injunctive or other equitable relief. He noted fines would scale with intent or impact and be higher if the media was intended to incite violence.

The disclosure requirement matters, witnesses said, because synthetic media can be difficult for voters to distinguish from authentic footage and can be used to mislead. Quinn Houston, democracy associate with the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, told the committee S.23 is an important step to protect voter trust and cited recent national examples of AI‑manipulated content being used in campaigns. Houston urged the committee to balance disclosure requirements with First Amendment protections and recommended ongoing review of the law as technology changes.

Representatives of broadcasters and cable operators voiced support for disclosure but warned the measure must not place liability or enforcement burdens on media outlets. Dylan Zwicky of Leonine Public Affairs, speaking on behalf of the New England Connectivity Telecommunications Association (NECTA), said, “The onus should be on the political candidate, party and not on the news station or print media” because broadcasters cannot always determine whether media is synthetic. Wendy Mays, executive director of the Vermont Association of Broadcasters, thanked the committee for language adopted in the Senate that she said avoids forcing broadcasters to choose between federal rules and the state law, noting broadcasters are subject to Federal Communications Commission rules limiting editorial alteration of political ads. Both Zwicky and Mays suggested adding or retaining a provision for programming described as commentary or general interest so panel discussions and news analysis are not unintentionally restricted.

Committee members asked practical questions about disclosure placement and visibility. Chan said senators had spent time “wordsmithing” language to account for different media formats — for example, audible disclosures at an appropriate tone and speed in audio and video — and said the bill’s current wording aims to make disclosures clear to voters. Witnesses and committee members discussed that disclosure buried at the end of a long written post could be ineffective.

Several witnesses referenced recent Vermont and out‑of‑state developments. Houston noted Vermont enacted H.878 in 2024 addressing nonconsensual disclosure of explicit images and said that law illustrates the state has previously acted on digital harms. Chan and Houston both referenced a New Hampshire robocall deepfake that encouraged voters not to vote as an example of harms the bill seeks to prevent.

No formal vote or committee action was recorded at the hearing. Committee members and witnesses indicated they expect additional consideration of technical language and possible amendments — including explicit treatment of commentary or analyses and how disclosure must appear across media formats — before the bill moves forward.