AI Transparency in Elections Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Morelle, Joseph D. [D-NY-25]
- Committees
- Committee on House Administration (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to increase transparency in political advertising by mandating disclaimers for content created or materially altered by generative AI, with new enforcement mechanisms for non-compliance.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require political advertisements that contain images, audio, or video substantially generated by artificial intelligence to include a clear and conspicuous disclaimer. It defines what constitutes a 'covered communication' and 'substantially generated by artificial intelligence,' establishes specific safe harbor formats for disclaimers across different media, and enhances the Federal Election Commission's enforcement powers, including civil penalties and a shortened judicial review period for violations. The bill also mandates the FEC, in consultation with NIST, to promulgate regulations to implement these requirements.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this legislation is crucial for protecting election integrity and ensuring an informed electorate in an era of rapidly advancing artificial intelligence. They contend that voters have a right to know when political advertisements are using AI to generate or manipulate content, especially given the potential for deepfakes and misleading information to sway public opinion. This bill provides necessary guardrails to maintain trust in democratic processes.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that while the intent is good, the bill could impose undue burdens on campaigns, particularly smaller ones, due to the technical complexities of identifying and disclaiming AI-generated content. Concerns could also be raised about potential chilling effects on political speech, the broad definition of 'covered communication,' and the practical challenges the Federal Election Commission will face in effectively enforcing these regulations across diverse and rapidly evolving digital platforms.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a), amending 52 U.S.C. 30120 by adding subsection (e)
Requirement for AI-Generated Content Disclaimer
This provision mandates that any political advertisement (defined as a 'covered communication') that includes an image, audio, or video substantially generated by artificial intelligence must clearly and conspicuously state that fact. The intent is to inform viewers and listeners when they are encountering AI-created or materially altered content in political messaging, thereby promoting transparency.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for maintaining trust in elections by ensuring voters are aware when content is not authentically human-generated. It helps combat the spread of deceptive AI-generated media.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that the requirement could be technically challenging to implement consistently across all platforms and types of content, potentially leading to inadvertent violations or over-disclosure that could clutter advertisements.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the public's right to know with the potential for increased compliance costs and technical hurdles for political advertisers.
Section 2(a), new 52 U.S.C. 30120(e)(1)
Definitions of Key Terms
This section establishes critical definitions for the new disclaimer requirement. 'Covered communication' is broadly defined to include various forms of political advertising that advocate for/against candidates, refer to candidates within specific timeframes, or solicit contributions. 'Generative artificial intelligence' is defined as AI technology using machine learning to create media. 'Substantially generated by artificial intelligence' means an image, audio, or video created or materially altered by generative AI, with an exception for minor, immaterial alterations that do not fundamentally change understanding.
Section 2(a), new 52 U.S.C. 30120(e)(3)
Safe Harbors for Disclaimer Format
This provision outlines specific requirements for how disclaimers must be presented to be considered 'clear and conspicuous' for different types of media. For images, the statement must be prominently displayed, meet certain size requirements, and be permanently affixed. For audio, it must be spoken clearly at the beginning or end for at least 4 seconds, identifying the disburser. For video with audio, both written (throughout the video) and audible formats are required. These rules aim to standardize disclosure and ensure visibility.
Section 2(b)
Enhanced Enforcement and Penalties
This section significantly strengthens the enforcement mechanisms for violations of the new AI disclaimer requirement. It amends the Federal Election Campaign Act to include these violations under 'qualified disclaimer requirements,' establishing civil money penalties up to $50,000 per covered communication. Crucially, it states that failure to timely respond to an alleged violation notice from the FEC will constitute an admission of the factual allegations. It also shortens the judicial review period for such complaints to 45 days, accelerating the legal process.
Section 2(c)
FEC Regulations in Consultation with NIST
This section directs the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to promulgate regulations within 90 days of enactment to carry out the new AI transparency amendments. Crucially, the FEC must consult with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in developing these regulations. The regulations must include criteria for determining what constitutes an image, audio, or video 'substantially generated by artificial intelligence' and specific requirements for the content of the disclaimer statement itself.
This amendment stipulates that in the case of a violation of a 'qualified disclaimer requirement' (i.e., the AI disclaimer), failure to timely respond after the FEC has notified the person of an alleged violation shall constitute the person's admission of the factual allegations of the complaint.
Section 2(b)(2), amending 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(4)(C)(ii)
Why it matters:While technically phrased, this is a significant procedural change that could have substantial consequences for campaigns. It's standard legislative practice to place enforcement details within existing enforcement statutes, but its impact on due process could be easily overlooked by a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents would argue this 'admission by default' mechanism is necessary to streamline enforcement, deter frivolous delays, and ensure that the FEC can act swiftly to address violations, especially given the rapid dissemination of political advertisements.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this provision could be overly harsh, particularly for smaller campaigns or individuals who may lack immediate legal counsel or understanding of FEC procedures, potentially leading to admissions of guilt without a full opportunity to present their defense.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly increases the procedural risk for any entity accused of violating the AI disclaimer requirement, potentially leading to more rapid imposition of penalties.
This amendment shortens the period for judicial review for complaints alleging a violation of the AI disclaimer requirement from 120 days to 45 days.
Section 2(b)(5), amending 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(8)(A)
Why it matters:This is a procedural change, often placed within existing statutory frameworks. However, shortening the judicial review period has substantive implications for the speed at which legal challenges to FEC decisions can be resolved, which is significant in the context of election cycles.
Case for: Proponents would argue that a shortened judicial review period is critical for addressing AI-related misinformation in political advertising, as election cycles are time-sensitive. Rapid resolution ensures that problematic ads can be addressed before they have a lasting impact.
Case against: Opponents might argue that a 45-day period is insufficient for thorough judicial review, potentially limiting the ability of parties to adequately prepare their cases or for courts to fully consider complex legal and technical arguments, especially concerning novel AI issues.
Estimated impact: This provision accelerates the legal timeline for challenges related to AI disclaimers, potentially leading to quicker final rulings on alleged violations.