Committee reviews S 23 on synthetic media; seeks conference with senate to reconcile language
Loading...
Summary
Members questioned a senate edit that broadened the bill from "political candidate" to "individual," debated removal of the word "created" from disclosure language, discussed accessibility wording, and agreed by straw poll to recommend a committee of conference to resolve differences.
Shortly after 1 p.m. Tuesday, the Government Operations & Military Affairs committee opened a detailed review of S 23, "an act relating to the use of synthetic media in elections," focusing on definitional changes, disclosure language and enforcement.
Rick Segal, legislative counsel, told the committee the senate adopted significant edits, including changing the scope from a "political candidate" to "an individual," broadening who could be covered by the statute. "Long answer is it still must be an ad that either injures the reputation of a political candidate or attempts to unduly influence the outcome of an election," Segal said, noting the bill still requires a connection to a candidate or to an election.
Members pointed to another senate floor edit that removed two words from the disclosure requirement. Where the house version required a statement that "this media has been created or intentionally manipulated by digital technology or artificial intelligence," the senate wording omits "created," reading instead "this media has been intentionally manipulated by digital technology or artificial intelligence." Several members said that omission could create an enforcement gap. "If someone could say, well, the AI didn't create it — I created it — that makes enforcement harder," one committee member said.
Committee discussion included concrete examples — from fabricated endorsements to manipulated audio imitating a candidate — intended to show how synthetic media might "unduly influence" voters. One member cited the widely reported robocall that impersonated President Joe Biden in New Hampshire as the type of large-scale, election-related deception the bill aims to address.
The senate also added inclusive accessibility language to the disclosure, specifying that notices should be "to the greatest extent possible for individuals with disabilities," a change members who observed senate debate said was intended to ensure audio or nonvisual formats convey the disclosure.
Members debated whether the bill should retain an explicit consent exemption (permission to use a person's image) and how to define the statutory term "unduly," which counsel said would ultimately be a judicial determination in close cases. The committee also discussed constitutional limits: several members said an outright ban on AI would raise First Amendment concerns and is not the bill's purpose.
Faced with differing house and senate language, the chair outlined two procedural options: amend S 23 and send it back to the senate (which could slow the calendar) or recommend a committee of conference to negotiate the differences. The committee conducted a straw poll by show of thumbs to recommend a committee of conference; the chair said that action "takes care of that order of business." The committee did not record a formal roll-call vote on any amendment during the session.
The next step is a committee of conference to reconcile definitional language, the disclosure text (including whether to restore "created"), the treatment of consent, and the accessibility wording. Members said those issues will determine how broadly the statute applies and how readily it can be enforced.
