Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Synthetic Media Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vermont Senate debates broader disclosure rule for synthetic election media, recesses for drafting
Summary
Senators considered an amendment to S.23 that would expand a 90-day disclosure trigger for deceptive synthetic media from material about candidates on the ballot to any deceptive synthetic media within 90 days of an election; senators raised drafting and scope concerns and recessed before a final third-reading vote.
The Vermont Senate considered an amendment to S.23 on synthetic media and elections that would expand the bill’s 90-day disclosure trigger from synthetic media about a candidate on the ballot to any deceptive synthetic media within 90 days before an election.
Senator Smith, the bill’s presenter, told colleagues the bill’s stated intent is to require disclosures “for synthetic media if it were to injure the reputation of a candidate, affect the outcome of an election, or, in other ways deceive a voter.” He described the amendment as replacing language that limited the remedy to situations “at which a candidate for elective office will appear on the ballot” with language applying to any election within 90 days.
The change drew questions from other senators about wording and scope. A senator identified as the senator from Chitman asked whether the broader provision would render the original, candidate-specific disclosure redundant. The senator from Rutland County and others pressed for clearer drafting so the provision would apply to synthetic media “regarding an election or regarding a candidate or measure on a ballot,” rather than to unrelated content that happened to be disseminated within 90 days of an election.
Senator Smith said the amendment is guided by intent language focused on material intended to deceive a voter and that the committee sought to capture potentially misleading media beyond material directed only at a candidate. The Senate’s Government Operations Committee had met and, according to a committee member, voted unanimously to accept the amendment as a friendly change.
Because senators said they needed time for legislative counsel and drafting clarification, the Senate recessed before a final third-reading vote on S.23. The chair indicated staff and legislative counsel would reconcile drafting issues and that the body would revisit the bill after the recess.
Discussion versus action: the amendment was offered and discussed on the Senate floor and accepted as a friendly amendment in committee; no final third-reading vote on S.23 was recorded in the transcript. Committee staff and legislative counsel were identified as next steps to resolve drafting questions.
