Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Political Advertising topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill requiring disclosure when paid political ads use synthetic media
Summary
House Bill 24-79, advanced by the Privileges and Elections Committee, would require paid electioneering communications that contain synthetic or materially altered image or audio to be clearly labeled; the committee reported the bill 19-2.
The House Privileges and Elections Committee voted to report House Bill 24-79, a disclosure measure that would require paid electioneering communications containing synthetic media to include a clear disclosure. The committee vote to report the bill to the full House was 19 in favor and 2 opposed.
The bill defines “synthetic media” as artificially generated or altered images or audio of a real event related to an identifiable individual that have been changed in a way a reasonable person would mistake for an authentic recording. Violations carry civil penalties and the bill references criminal sanctions up to a class 1 misdemeanor for violators.
Patron Delegate Sickles told the committee the bill is intended to stem misinformation made possible by increasingly available AI tools. “This bill will stem the tide of misinformation and campaign advertisements that continue to grow as AI and other computer aided computer generated technology become widely available,” she said.
Scope and limits discussed - The bill applies to paid “electioneering communications,” not to all social-media posts or unpaid speech. Counsel noted the statute would cover communications tied to the pre-election windows that already apply to electioneering: 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election (a limitation designed to balance speech and enforcement). - Satire and overtly cartoonish or clearly nonrealistic images would not be covered, counsel said, because the defining standard is whether a reasonable person would believe the media is a real event. - Committee counsel warned that expanding the pre-election window risks First Amendment challenges; counsel cited that California’s 2019 law is under federal challenge and a preliminary injunction has limited enforcement there so far.
Public testimony - Mary Crutchfield, League of Women Voters of Virginia: The League supports the bill and asked for clarification about whether free or widely available tools could be used to evade disclosure; she said disclosure is essential for a well-informed electorate. - Nancy Morgan, Big Money Out (online): “We definitely support the bill because it protects candidates legislators from obscure ad[s] which misrepresent their positions using synthetic media,” she said.
Committee concerns and exchanges Members asked whether short, highly circulated ads could avoid accountability if they were paid for only briefly and then reshared; the patron welcomed amendments to close potential loopholes. Members also asked whether the bill should apply from the date a person files as a candidate; the committee discussed tradeoffs between broader coverage and increased risk of constitutional challenge.
Action taken The committee voted 19-2 to report the bill to the full House. The bill will proceed through the House legislative calendar and is likely to face additional amendment and legal-review questions if it advances.
Ending note Supporters framed the bill as a necessary, narrowly tailored response to the spread of misleading AI-generated political advertisements; counsel cautioned that any broader time windows or restrictions increase the risk of First Amendment litigation.
