Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Integrity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers bill requiring AI disclaimers in political advertising; supporters seek transparency, tech groups warn of overbreadth
Summary
House Bill 1167 would require political advertising and other communications for political purposes to disclose AI-generated content. Sponsors framed the measure as a consumer-protection and transparency device; tech groups urged narrowing the language to avoid sweeping disclosures for benign uses.
House Bill 1167 would add a disclosure requirement under the corrupt practices chapter of Century Code for political communications that use content generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence.
Sponsor Representative Jonathan Warrie (District 22) said he worked with the Secretary of State’s office on the draft and described the measure as aligning with actions other states are taking to protect candidates and voters as AI tools spread. "This will become a bigger issue for our candidates and our electorate as we go forward," Warrie said.
Sandy McMurty, deputy at the Secretary of State’s office, told the committee that violations under the corrupt practices chapter are class A misdemeanors and that about 20 states have adopted similar disclosure laws. McMurty said the office intends the requirement to be a straightforward disclaimer (for example, "This content was generated by artificial intelligence") and noted enforcement would generally rely on local state's attorneys or the attorney general.
Opponents and technical concerns: Terry Sefferts, executive director of TechND, and others said the bill’s current phrasing is overly broad because AI capabilities are embedded in many everyday tools; mandatory disclosure on all political communications could create "disclosure overload." Sefferts recommended focusing the law on harmful uses such as deep-fake videos.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about definitions, enforcement, the temporal scope (campaign-era vs. broader political purpose), whether trivial uses like spell‑check would trigger a disclosure, and what penalties apply. McMurty said the draft mirrors language other states used and that the office would work with the committee to refine definitions if the committee wished.
Representative Christie noted related bills targeting deep fakes are also in process. The committee closed the hearing with proponents and opponents agreeing further drafting could be useful.
Ending: No final committee action was recorded; the Secretary of State’s office and stakeholders offered to work with legislators to clarify definitions and exemptions.
