Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Ai Disclosure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nevada hearing considers disclosure rules for AI in political communications
Summary
The Assembly committee heard testimony on AB73, a bill from the Secretary of State that would require disclosures when artificial intelligence is used to generate political images, audio or video; committee members and stakeholders debated scope, liability and penalties.
The Assembly Committee on Legislative and Operations opened a hearing on Assembly Bill 73 on the use of artificial intelligence in political communications, with Cisco Aguilar, Nevada secretary of state, and staff presenting a conceptual amendment that narrows which uses would trigger disclosure requirements.
Aguilar told the committee AB73 is intended to increase "modernization, innovation, and transparency" in elections and to help voters make informed decisions. "AB73 does not attempt to limit protected political speech," he said, adding the proposal would require disclosures when synthetic media is used in political communications.
The bill would require campaigns and other political communicators to label AI-generated or substantially AI-manipulated audio, images or video that could create a false impression about a real person. Gabriel De Cara, chief deputy, said the draft was modeled on legislation from Washington state and that a conceptual amendment narrows the bill to focus on generative AI rather than routine image edits.
"We wanted to really focus on generative AI," De Cara said, describing the intent to distinguish common photo edits from synthetic media that "creates a false image, creates an image that never happened." He also said the amendment would create a limited private cause of action allowing a candidate targeted by a deceptive deepfake without a disclaimer to seek relief through the courts.
Committee members pressed staff on several specifics. Members asked whether AI-created images could still be used so long as a disclosure appears (the presenters answered yes), whether satire would be exempt (presenters said the bill is not intended to apply to clearly satirical communications), and how fines would be applied. De Cara said the conceptual amendment removes an initially large fine; enforcement would instead fall under existing authority in NRS chapter 294A, which allows civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation.
Broadcasters, motion-picture industry representatives and technology trade groups testified about liability and operational burdens. Trey Abney of the Nevada Broadcasters Association and Iris Duarte of TechNet said they were working with the Secretary of State's office to refine language so broadcasters are not held liable for material provided to them by third parties. Joe Guild of the Motion Picture Association said the association had proposed technical edits and expected to reconcile outstanding points.
Advocates and watchdog groups including Silver State Voices, the Council for Better Nevada and Battle Born Progress testified in support, calling the bill necessary to protect voters from deceptive deepfakes. "Digitally manipulated campaign communications have the potential to drastically alter voters' perspectives of candidates and issues," Ryan Vortisch of Silver State Voices said.
Opponents, including some callers, objected to a provision that had required uploading copies of communications to the Secretary of State's website; presenters said that provision has been removed from the conceptual amendment. Other callers raised First Amendment concerns and questioned whether the state should regulate political content; presenters reiterated the bill's stated purpose is disclosure and voter education, not content censorship.
The committee heard a mix of technical and policy questions, and staff indicated continued stakeholder outreach. De Cara said the office aims to work with broadcasters, motion-picture interests and technology groups to refine liability and definitional language before the bill moves further.
No formal vote occurred in the hearing.
AB73 provenance (transcript excerpts): the hearing was opened with: "I will now open the hearing on Assembly Bill 73. This measure establishes requirements for certain communications relating to an election. And we have the secretary of state's office here today to present at the table." The committee closed the AB73 portion with: "And thank you so much. With that, we will close the hearing on Assembly Bill 73.", which marked the end of consideration in this session.
