Senate committee hears S.23 on synthetic media disclosures in paid political ads

The Senate Committee on Government Operations on Feb. 27, 2025, heard testimony on S.23, an act addressing the use of synthetic media in elections, with witnesses and legal advisers urging narrow, targeted language and exemptions for entities regulated by the Federal Communications Commission.

For the record, my name is Lauren Hibbert, deputy secretary of state, Hibbert told the committee as she described draft changes that the Secretary of State's office and broadcasters support. Hibbert said the office backs three broadcaster-proposed amendments: changing language on representation to require an "authentic reporting of an individual," clarifying who bears liability for required disclosures, and replacing a draft term "pitch" with "pace." Hibbert described the distinction between paid and unpaid content as central to the bill, saying "the paid part is an also a really important thing to focus on."

The bill matters because it aims to address new techniques that can fabricate audio and video of candidates while balancing legal risk and practical burdens on broadcasters. The committee heard that requiring disclosures is legally less risky than an outright prohibition but raises practical questions about who must disclose and who is regulated.

Attorney General's Office representatives and legislative counsel urged caution on broad prohibitions. Todd Dalos, assistant attorney general, said his office supports the initiative in principle and that "looking at a bill that requires disclosure versus prohibiting conduct, is a less risky proposition." Rick Segal of the Office of Legislative Counsel told the committee that a California district court found one disclosure regime too onerous on small producers and stressed the importance of narrowly tailored language to survive legal review. Committee members and counsel discussed other states' experiences: Michigan and Minnesota have enacted bans or disclosure regimes without major litigation so far, while courts struck down broader prohibitions in other jurisdictions.

Broadcasters warned about technical limits and costs of detection. Wendy Nays, executive director of the Vermont Association of Broadcasters, said most public detection tools focus on still images and that robust commercial tools for audio or video detection are expensive. "It is $3,000 a month with a 12 month commitment. So, that would be just annually $36,000 for a broadcaster to have to subscribe to that," Nays said, noting that some smaller stations sell political spots at very low unit rates and operate on tight budgets. Nays also reminded the committee that broadcasters must sell legally qualified political candidates the lowest unit rate for a time slot, which influences the commercial dynamics of monitoring ads.

Committee members pressed on three recurring tensions: 1) whether the statute should cover only paid advertising or also content that spreads unpaid across platforms; 2) whether to adopt a "knowingly" standard or require a "good faith effort" to determine authenticity; and 3) how federal regulation and litigation risk affect exemptions for entities regulated by the FCC and platforms that host user content. Several senators spoke in favor of limiting the bill to paid content and adding a knowingly standard so that liability would attach where a reasonable person knew or should have known the material was synthetic.

Witnesses and counsel also discussed platform liability and federal preemption. Committee testimony noted that federal law governing online platforms affects whether social media companies can be held liable for user-generated content, and that the practical reach of any state law into platforms would be limited. At the same time, members argued platforms bear responsibility for content distributed at scale and that the law may need to differentiate platforms that curate and sell ad space from open hosting services.

No committee vote was taken. Committee members discussed two procedural paths: (1) pass S.23 as a standalone bill with the broadcasters' recommended amendments, which several members said would secure their support, or (2) fold the disclosure provisions into the omnibus miscellaneous elections bill that will be sent from the House. The chair and multiple senators said they expect further drafting and conversations before a formal vote.

Committee staff and witnesses flagged legal uncertainty and implementation questions that will shape future drafts: how to define covered entities and paid content, how to calibrate a "knowingly" standard for intermediaries and broadcasters, and how to ensure any disclosure regime does not impose burdens that courts would find constitutionally overbroad. The attorney general's representative and legislative counsel encouraged narrow language and exempting entities already regulated by the FCC.

The committee indicated it will continue discussion and expects to revisit S.23 in subsequent sessions and possibly include provisions in the larger elections bill for 2026. No formal action or vote was recorded during the Feb. 27 hearing.