Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Synthetic Media Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate-backed bill would require disclosures for synthetic media near elections; committee hears technical and enforcement concerns
Summary
Senate-sponsored S.23 would require clear disclosures when synthetic media intentionally misrepresents a candidate or election within 90 days of any election; the Government Operations committee discussed scope, exemptions and enforcement.
The committee reviewed S.23, the Senate bill aimed at limiting deceptive synthetic media in the run-up to elections by requiring clear disclosures when digital manipulation produces audio or video that would mislead a reasonable person about a candidate’s speech or conduct.
The bill would require a disclosure on synthetic media published within 90 days of an election (including primaries and town-meeting-day votes) if the material was created or intentionally manipulated to influence an election or injure a candidate’s reputation. The sponsor recounted the example of AI-manipulated robo-calls in a 2024 primary and said the committee opted for a disclosure regime rather than an outright ban because of the First Amendment and litigation risks.
S.23 defines deceptive or fraudulent synthetic media as media that appears to a reasonable person to be an authentic recording of an individual saying or doing something that did not occur, or that gives a fundamentally different understanding than an unaltered original. The bill sets disclosure and labeling requirements for manipulated audio and video, exempts expressive parody, and offers exemptions for broadcasters, some publishers, and platforms in limited circumstances (for example, when the platform disclaims authenticity or when federal law compels the broadcaster to run paid political material). It also authorizes civil penalties (fines starting at up to $1,000 for intentional violations, higher penalties for repeat or violent-intent violations), allows injunctive relief for harmed candidates, and gives the attorney general or a state's attorney authority to pursue enforcement.
Committee members asked how the bill would treat text-message campaigns, webinars, and social-media posts; legislative counsel and the sponsor said the bill is aimed at the person or entity that produces and publishes the deceptive material, including text-message distributions when a person is the content producer. Counsel and committee members also discussed enforcement practicality, the carve-out for broadcasters (testimony cited the Federal Communications Commission and economic realities of small radio stations), and the ongoing First Amendment litigation history in other states. Legislative counsel advised that an outright ban would face higher judicial scrutiny and likely challenges; the committee discussed alternatives and the international patchwork of state approaches (some states have narrower time windows or different penalties).
The committee recorded that S.23 passed the Senate GovOps committee by a unanimous vote and that the bill, as presented, had been the subject of extensive testimony from advocacy groups, broadcasters, the Secretary of State and other stakeholders. No immediate changes were made on the floor of this committee during the discussion.
