Senate panel weighs S23 requiring disclosure when AI creates campaign material; broadcasters seek narrow exemptions

The Senate Committee on Government Operations met Feb. 6 to discuss S23, a proposed bill that would require disclosure when campaign material is created with artificial intelligence.

Supporters at the hearing, including staff from the Secretary of State’s office, framed S23 as a transparency measure intended to give voters notice when AI was used to generate images or audio in campaign communications. Committee members spent most of the session parsing the bill’s language, identifying several practical and legal questions that would need further work.

Committee members and witnesses focused on three practical issues: (1) how the bill defines “synthetic media” and when material is deceptive; (2) whether and when a required disclosure must be made (the draft references a 90‑day window before an election); and (3) whether broadcasters and platform operators should be treated as publishers responsible for disclosure or simply as carriers of candidate-paid content.

Officials from the Secretary of State’s office told the committee they support disclosure rather than an outright ban on AI-created campaign material, noting uncertainty about the legal durability of prohibitions and potential constitutional challenges. Committee discussion referenced a recent stay in California on a state-level prohibition as evidence of unresolved legal questions.

Industry witnesses pressed for carve-outs. Representatives of the Vermont Association of Broadcasters (VAB) asked the committee to exempt radio and television broadcast stations (including cable and satellite operators) and internet sites or streaming platforms when synthetic media appears in bona fide newscasts, interviews, documentaries or spot news coverage. They said Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules limit a broadcaster’s ability to alter paid commercial content and that a station often must air paid material as submitted. Broadcasters also proposed language clarifying that the exemption apply when the station is airing authentic journalistic coverage rather than paid political advertising.

The VAB also suggested specific disclosure mechanics for on‑air materials: a spoken disclosure delivered in a clearly audible manner, at an understandable pace and pitch so it is not effectively obscured. Committee members discussed how easily a spoken disclosure could be muffled or hidden by rapid pacing or pitch shifting and considered whether text crawls or visual overlays on video would be necessary for accessibility.

Technology and trade groups that filed comments on the committee website also proposed changes. TechNet and telecommunications representatives submitted suggested edits aimed at clarifying scope and implementation. Dylan Zwicky of the New England Connectivity and Telecommunications Association and other industry representatives signaled they would testify at a later hearing and that platform‑level labeling tools already exist in some services (for example, social platforms that provide AI‑generated content toggles).

Committee members debated enforcement and evidence. Some senators asked whether broadcasters should be required to run forensic checks or other technical reviews before airing content; witnesses and staff noted detection tools are developing but unevenly available. The committee discussed a “knowing” standard in the draft (that a person knew or reasonably should have known material was synthetic) and a parallel “good faith” effort standard for media outlets.

No final vote was taken. The committee agreed to take additional testimony: the transcript records that members scheduled more witnesses (industry representatives including lobbyists and VAB representatives) for continued hearings the following day and signaled plans to revisit the bill next week. Committee staff and the Secretary of State’s office were asked to circulate suggested language from stakeholders (VAB redline, TechNet suggestions) and to prepare options that would preserve voter notice while addressing broadcaster and platform constraints.

What the bill would require and what remains unsettled

- Draft language in S23 would require campaigns (and campaign communications) to disclose when material was created with “artificial intelligence” that produces synthetic media that misrepresents an actual person or event. The current draft also includes a provision limiting certain disclosures within 90 days of an election; committee members asked staff to clarify the intended scope (primary, general, local elections).

- Broadcasters requested explicit exemptions for bona fide news programming and for spot coverage of breaking events on grounds that FCC rules and commercial‑spot rules limit their ability to alter paid material. Broadcasters also asked that carve-outs extend to internet streaming platforms and mobile applications when the content is bona fide news or live coverage.

- The committee discussed disclosure format: the VAB recommended an on‑air spoken disclosure in clear, audible pitch and pace; members asked whether visual crawls or metadata would be required for online postings and how to ensure accessibility.

Next steps

The committee concluded the session by scheduling additional testimony (industry lobbyists and representatives are listed on the committee website) and said staff will draft possible amendments. Lawmakers signaled they intend to move carefully to craft a disclosure regime that is feasible for broadcasters and platforms while delivering clear notice to voters. Any formal votes on S23 were not taken at this meeting.

Ending note

Committee members and staff emphasized the topic’s evolving nature: detection tools and platform labeling are developing rapidly, and members said they expect to revisit and refine statutory language as technologies and court decisions emerge.