Committee narrows S.23 draft, adds AG investigative authority for synthetic‑media complaints

The Senate Government Operations & Military Affairs committee reviewed draft 3.2 of S.23, the synthetic‑media bill, and discussed narrowing the proposal to target AI impersonation of political candidates while adding civil investigative authority for the attorney general.

In focused discussion, Rick Sagle, Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Council, described major edits in draft 3.2 designed to strengthen the bill’s chances of surviving constitutional challenge and make enforcement clearer. “You wanna stop a a impersonation, some kind of AI ad, phone call, video commercial, whatever it is. You wanna prevent that ad from deceiving a voter, in a mean spirited way,” Sagle said, summarizing the intent behind the revised definitions.

The committee’s draft removes broader language that would have applied to AI‑generated individuals generally and instead defines prohibited “synthetic media” as images, audio or video that appear to be an authentic recording of a political candidate’s appearance, speech, or conduct and that were created or intentionally manipulated with digital technology “without the consent of the candidate,” Sagle said. He described that narrowing as a deliberate choice to focus protection on candidates rather than any AI‑generated individual in an ad.

Nut graf: The committee debated three core changes — who the law protects, the required mental state for enforcement, and which office can investigate. Committee members pressed staff for comparisons with other states and asked the attorney general’s office to help clarify how civil enforcement has worked elsewhere.

Committee discussion and technical changes Committee members and staff discussed three principal edits in draft 3.2: (1) narrowing the definition to candidate impersonation rather than any AI personation; (2) adding a consent clause so campaigns could use AI with candidate consent; and (3) reconciling the statute’s fault standard with its penalty language. Sagle explained that the draft switches from the broader “knew or should have known” standard to a “knew and intentionally” standard to match the draft’s penalties, noting that the committee may choose the alternative if it wants a broader enforcement standard.

Sagle also said the draft borrows civil investigative authority language from existing campaign‑finance enforcement in Title 17, Chapter 61 so the AG can investigate allegations under S.23. “This is basically what [the AG’s office] have under the campaign finance violations in chapter 61,” Sagle said, describing the inserted investigative provisions as modeled on that statute.

Members asked for comparative enforcement information. “Rick, I believe this was your testimony from a little ways back, but, there are a couple of other states who have passed laws that are similar,” a committee member identified as Rebecca said, asking whether some states give prosecutorial powers to their AG. Brett Nugent, a committee member, asked whether courts would sort disputes over the new law as cases arise: “Wow. That's wonder if you have, like, more context in terms of, like, this type of law.” Sagle and other staff responded that roughly two dozen states have passed similar laws in various forms and that enforcement structures differ state to state.

Comparative and constitutional concerns Staff warned the committee of constitutional risks states have faced when regulating synthetic or manipulated political content. Sagle cited the California and Vermont litigation context and said some states’ approaches — including outright bans or mandatory labeling of parodies — had produced legal difficulties. Members identified California, Texas, Illinois (HP 4762), New Hampshire, Minnesota and Washington as jurisdictions to consult about enforcement details.

Next steps and staff directions The committee did not take formal votes. Members directed staff to gather enforcement and implementation information from comparable states and to schedule witnesses and additional discussion at upcoming meetings. Sagle and staff said they will reach out to the attorney general’s office contacts and to state legislative staff in jurisdictions identified during the meeting to collect practical enforcement experiences.

Ending: Committee members agreed to continue refining the draft and to hear from practitioners and officials next week; no formal action or vote was taken during this session.