Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Synthetic Media topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel reviews S.23 requiring disclosure when campaigns use synthetic media
Summary
The Senate Government Operations Committee heard from Sen. Hardy and outside stakeholders on S.23, a bill that would require disclosure when synthetic media (AI-altered audio or images) is used in election materials within 90 days of an election and creates penalties, with stiffer penalties for uses that incite violence.
The Senate Government Operations Committee on Feb. 4, 2025 heard an overview of S.23, a bill that would require campaigns and others to disclose when they use synthetic media — AI-generated or AI-altered audio, images or video — in election materials within 90 days of an election and create civil penalties for violations.
Senator Hardy of Addison, the bill’s lead sponsor, told the committee that the measure is intended to reduce deception in campaigns. “Synthetic media is a more formal way of basically saying AI, the use of, changing images or sound, in a broadcast or in a photograph,” Hardy said, adding that recent incidents include a phone call during New Hampshire primaries that used an AI version of President Joe Biden’s voice. “It was AI generated. And that can happen to anybody, any of us, any candidate, any party. It’s not a partisan issue. It’s a technology issue and it’s a deception issue.”
Hardy said S.23 would not ban synthetic media but would require disclosure that a recording or image was altered and that the disclosure requirement would apply in the 90 days before an election. The bill would raise penalties if synthetic media were used to incite violence against a candidate, poll worker or other election participant. Hardy compared the timing provision to Vermont’s mass-media reporting rules, which impose reporting requirements as voting approaches because “the closer you get to an election, the more people are paying attention.”
Committee members pressed for technical clarifications. Senator White asked whether commonplace photo filters or minor edits — “I’ve certainly…added the cat ears to a photo or two” — would trigger disclosure; Hardy suggested technical witnesses and state-by-state comparisons would help draw the line. The bill’s text refers to “90 days of an election,” a phrasing Hardy said she intends to clarify; she told the committee the intent is for the requirement to apply to primaries and general elections and “local and state” contests, but the committee should confirm that in drafting.
Hardy and the committee noted that the bill mirrors provisions already enacted in several states including Texas, California and Massachusetts and that the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and advocacy groups such as Public Citizen have tracked the variations. Hardy said tech-industry lobbyists have already raised concerns about liability and that experts should testify about how the technology is actually being used and policed in other states.
Next steps: the committee said it expects to hear testimony from technical and advocacy witnesses, including a planned appearance by a Public Citizen representative listed by Hardy, to refine definitions and liability language before drafting amendment language.
