Why Is Political AI Use Controversial?
AI technologies are increasingly deployed in political campaigns and elections through deepfake videos mimicking candidates, AI-generated robocalls and text messages, microtargeted political advertising, and automated disinformation campaigns. While AI offers legitimate campaign tools for message optimization, voter outreach, and fundraising, it also enables manipulation through convincing fake content, impersonation of candidates or officials, and sophisticated influence operations.
High-profile incidents including AI-generated robocalls impersonating President Biden, deepfake videos of political figures, and AI-powered disinformation campaigns have prompted regulatory responses. Lawmakers worldwide are enacting restrictions on deceptive AI political content, disclosure requirements for AI-generated materials, and enhanced penalties for election-related AI fraud.
For political campaigns, technology companies, and platforms, understanding legal boundaries for political AI is essential for compliance while preserving legitimate campaign innovation and free political speech.
Federal Election Law Framework
FEC Jurisdiction and Limitations
The Federal Election Commission regulates federal campaign finance but has limited authority over content and speech. The FEC can regulate fraudulent misrepresentation but faces First Amendment constraints on restricting political speech.
The FEC has begun considering AI-specific rules but hasn’t yet adopted comprehensive regulations.
Honest Ads Act Proposals
Proposed federal legislation would require disclaimers on AI-generated political content, prohibit deepfakes impersonating candidates, extend broadcast disclaimer rules to digital platforms, and impose penalties for violations.
Congressional action remains pending but may accelerate after prominent incidents.
TRACED Act and Robocalls
The TRACED Act addresses illegal robocalls including AI-generated calls. It authorizes fines up to $10,000 per violation and requires caller ID authentication making spoofing harder.
State Political AI Regulations
Deepfake Disclosure Laws
Multiple states have enacted laws requiring disclosure when political ads use AI-generated or manipulated media. These laws typically require clear disclaimers that content is AI-generated, apply within certain periods before elections, and impose penalties for violations.
States with political deepfake laws include California, Texas, Minnesota, Michigan, and others with varying scopes and requirements.
Deepfake Prohibition Laws
Some states go further, prohibiting deceptive deepfakes of candidates within election windows. These laws raise First Amendment questions about restricting political speech, even if false.
Courts will likely review constitutionality balancing fraud prevention with free speech.
Criminal Penalties
Several states impose criminal penalties for creating or distributing political deepfakes with intent to influence elections including misdemeanor charges, fines, and potential imprisonment.
Civil remedies may also be available for harmed candidates.
Platform Policies on Political AI
Meta/Facebook Policies
Meta requires advertisers to disclose digitally manipulated media in political ads, prohibits deepfake videos that would mislead voters, and labels synthetic media when detected.
Google/YouTube Policies
Google requires election advertisers to disclose synthetic content and prohibits manipulated media that could deceive voters about political candidates or issues.
X/Twitter Approach
X has implemented community notes for synthetic content but takes a less restrictive approach to political AI, emphasizing counter-speech over removal.
TikTok Restrictions
TikTok prohibits political advertising entirely and removes synthetic media violating misinformation policies.
First Amendment Considerations
Political Speech Protections
Political speech receives the highest First Amendment protection. Regulations restricting political content face strict scrutiny requiring compelling government interests, narrowly tailored restrictions, and least restrictive means.
False Speech and Fraud
While false speech generally receives some protection, fraud and defamation don’t. Laws may prohibit intentionally deceptive deepfakes created with knowledge of falsity and intent to deceive or harm.
Compelled Speech Concerns
Disclosure requirements constitute compelled speech. Courts evaluate whether disclosure mandates serve substantial government interests without unduly burdening speech.
Narrow, factual disclaimers about synthetic media are more likely upheld than broad restrictions.
Defamation and Right of Publicity
Defamation Claims by Candidates
Candidates harmed by false AI-generated content may sue for defamation. However, public figures must prove actual malice—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.
Deepfakes created with clear falsity may meet this standard.
Right of Publicity Violations
Unauthorized use of candidates’ names, likenesses, or voices in political deepfakes may violate right of publicity, though political context may provide stronger defenses than commercial use.
Section 230 and Platform Liability
Section 230 generally protects platforms from liability for user-posted political deepfakes. However, Section 230 doesn’t protect those who create deepfakes, and platforms face pressure to remove deceptive content voluntarily.
International Approaches
European Union
The EU Digital Services Act requires platforms to address disinformation risks including AI-generated political content. The EU AI Act classifies political deepfakes as high-risk requiring transparency.
United Kingdom
The UK Online Safety Act requires platforms to assess election disinformation risks and implement mitigation measures. The Electoral Commission provides guidance on political AI use.
Other Jurisdictions
Countries including Australia, Canada, and India are developing regulations addressing AI election interference with varying approaches from disclosure requirements to content restrictions.
Practical Compliance for Campaigns
Disclosure Best Practices
Political campaigns using AI should disclose AI-generated content clearly and conspicuously, maintain records of AI usage, and implement review processes before distribution.
Avoiding Deceptive Content
Don’t create deepfakes impersonating opponents, fabricate false statements or endorsements, use AI to mislead about material facts, or deploy AI robocalls without proper identification.
Rapid Response to False AI Content
Campaigns targeted by false AI should respond quickly through public corrections and fact-checking, platform reporting and takedown requests, and legal action when appropriate.
Technology Company Obligations
AI Product Design Considerations
Companies providing AI tools should implement safeguards against political misuse including detection and labeling of synthetic political content, restrictions on impersonation features during election periods, and transparency about AI generation.
Platform Moderation
Platforms hosting political content should establish clear policies on deepfakes and AI content, invest in detection technologies, respond promptly to reported violations, and provide appeals processes.
Transparency Reporting
Disclose enforcement actions against political AI violations, content removal statistics, and government requests related to elections.
Enforcement and Penalties
State and Federal Enforcement
State attorneys general enforce political deepfake laws, FEC pursues campaign finance violations involving AI, and DOJ prosecutes criminal fraud or election interference.
Civil Remedies
Candidates may pursue civil litigation for defamation, right of publicity violations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and injunctive relief preventing continued distribution.
Platform Account Termination
Violating platform policies may result in account suspension, ad account termination, and permanent bans from services.
Legitimate Political AI Applications
Permissible Uses
Many AI applications in politics are legal and beneficial including voter data analysis and targeting, fundraising optimization, speech drafting assistance, and event planning and logistics.
Synthetic Media with Disclosure
Creating synthetic political content is permissible when clearly labeled as AI-generated, not impersonating real individuals deceptively, and complying with disclosure laws.
Parody and Satire
Parody and satire receive First Amendment protection even when using AI. However, ensure reasonable viewers would understand content as parody through clear satire indicators and avoiding deceptive distribution.
Emerging Issues
AI-Generated Candidates
Could AI-generated candidates run for office? This raises novel legal questions about candidate eligibility, campaign finance disclosure, and voter understanding.
Personalized AI Campaign Messages
AI enabling personalized messages to millions of voters raises concerns about manipulation versus legitimate persuasion, transparency in microtargeting, and coordination and attribution.
Conclusion: Balancing Innovation and Integrity
Political AI regulation must balance free speech protection with election integrity. Current legal frameworks include state disclosure and prohibition laws, platform self-regulation, and traditional defamation and fraud remedies.
Campaigns and technology companies should prioritize transparency, avoid deceptive practices, and engage constructively in developing responsible norms for political AI.
Contact Rock LAW PLLC for Political AI Legal Counsel
At Rock LAW PLLC, we advise campaigns and technology companies on political AI compliance.
We assist with:
- State political AI law compliance
- Campaign disclosure requirements
- Platform policy navigation
- Defamation and publicity rights defense
- First Amendment analysis
- Enforcement action response
Contact us for guidance on legal use of AI in political campaigns.
Related Articles:
- Legal Risks of AI Deepfakes and Synthetic Media
- Voice Cloning and AI Audio Legal Issues
- AI Content Moderation Obligations
Rock LAW PLLC
Business Focused. Intellectual Property Driven.
www.rock.law/