Committee splits on updating campaign disclosure for paid social media; bill fails in committee
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
A proposal to add social media and paid influencer marketing to political-ad disclosure rules and to create a fine schedule (HB 112) drew debate over whether campaign-generated digital posts would be covered. The committee failed to recommend the third substitute—2 ayes, 3 noes—leaving the issue unresolved at this committee.
Representative Hayes presented HB 112 (third substitute), which adds social media and influencer marketing to the legal definition of political advertising and creates a fine schedule as an alternative to misdemeanor prosecution for disclosure violations. Sponsor said the measure targets paid digital advertisements and influencer marketing (paid posts meant to appear organic) and seeks to improve transparency for digital political ads.
Senators questioned whether the bill would obligate candidates to add 'paid for by' tags to campaign‑generated digital content or only to paid placement through platforms and influencer arrangements. Representative Hayes said many platforms already surface a 'paid for by' label for paid advertisements and the bill intends to codify that requirement and address influencer marketing that currently escapes on‑ad disclosure.
Public comments raised concerns about vagueness and the potential to sweep in unpaid volunteer 'marketing' or gatekeep grassroots speech. Seth Stewart, testifying online, argued that some provisions could be overly broad and create selective enforcement risks.
After debate, Senator Escamilla moved to recommend the third substitute favorably to the Senate floor, but the motion failed — the chair announced it failed with two ayes (Senators Harper and Escamilla) and three noes (Senators Brammer, Kaye and Fillmore).
What’s next: The bill did not pass this committee; supporters and staff may revise language if they seek further consideration.