Committee adopts broadcaster edits to synthetic-media-in-elections bill (S.23), debates ban versus disclosure

The Senate Government Operations Committee on March 11, 2025 discussed S.23, the proposed law on synthetic media in elections, and agreed to accept revisions recommended by the Vermont Association of Broadcasters while adding a provider-liability exemption requested by telecommunications interests.

Why it matters: S.23 would require disclosure for synthetic or AI-generated political material (with defined exemptions) and sets rules intended to help voters identify content created or materially altered by artificial intelligence. Committee action shapes how campaign speech, platform liability and telecommunication providers interact under state law.

What the committee agreed

- Broadcasters' edits: Committee members said they would adopt language supplied by the Vermont Association of Broadcasters to clarify definitions and exemptions. The committee also added a minor drafting change (noted in the transcript as adding "pace or pitch" language) to the bill's definition section.

- Provider liability exemption: The committee incorporated an exemption, requested by AT&T through a submission by Nick Sherman, to make clear that the bill would not impose liability on providers of interactive computer services or telecommunication services for content produced by third parties. The committee discussed the provision as intended to avoid reaching the physical wires and infrastructure rather than content producers. As quoted in committee notes, the requested exemption reads in part: "nothing in this section shall be construed to impose liability on a provider of an interactive computer service ... or a telecommunication service ... for content provided by another person." (language as summarized by staff in the hearing)

The debate: disclosure vs. ban

Members debated whether the statute should require disclosure (the current approach in the draft) or impose a narrow ban on AI-generated political advertising. Some senators said they preferred a narrow ban with a satire exception; others, including members citing the secretary of state's office, said a disclosure-based approach was more likely to withstand legal challenge and to pass the Legislature.

Committee direction and next steps

- The bill sponsor (and committee staff member Rick, who presented) said he would incorporate the broadcaster and provider-exemption language into a revised draft and circulate it. Committee members expected a finished draft by Thursday and planned to consider it later that week.

- No formal committee vote on final passage is recorded in the transcript; members signaled they intend to move a revised version out of committee this week if language is acceptable to a majority.

Ending

Committee members left the overall policy choice unresolved but moved the bill forward procedurally by adopting the broadcaster edits and the provider-exemption language. The committee scheduled follow-up with staff to circulate a revised draft prior to further action.