West Virginia Senate Committee Addresses AI Imagery in Elections
CHARLESTON – Concerns about the potential misuse of AI-generated images and “deepfakes” in elections have prompted West Virginia lawmakers to consider legislation aimed at regulating the use of artificial intelligence in political campaigns. The state Senate Judiciary Committee recently advanced Senate Bill 484, a measure designed to establish guidelines and penalties related to the deployment of synthetic media.
David Cook, general counsel for the Secretary of State’s Office, testifies before the state Senate Judiciary Committee.
The bill, which was amended and recommended for passage by the committee, now heads to the full Senate for consideration. SB 484 seeks to restrict the distribution of deceptive synthetic media designed to harm candidates or influence election outcomes within 90 days of an election, unless a disclaimer is included.
David Cook, general counsel for the Secretary of State’s Office, informed committee members that similar laws are already in place in 19 other states. “Right now, AI, at least as it relates to elections, is unregulated,” Cook explained. “This is a disclaimer bill. This simply means that someone within 90 days of an election who uses synthetic media generated by AI to attack a candidate needs to include a disclaimer.”
The proposed legislation defines “synthetic media” as “an image, audio recording or video recording of an individual’s appearance, speech or conduct that has been intentionally manipulated with the use of artificial intelligence techniques or similar digital technology.” This media would be considered deceptive if it misleads viewers into believing the content is authentic or if it is used to influence individuals regarding a candidate.
Cook provided an example, stating, “If I’m a candidate and I wanted to Photoshop a picture of myself with Donald Trump, that would not violate this law. This is a law that protects persons from being attacked by other persons via AI. And finally, it’s made with the intent to injure a candidate or influence the results of an election.”
Under the proposed law, any use of synthetic media would require a “clear and conspicuous disclaimer stating that the synthetic media has been manipulated by technical means and depicts speech or conduct that did not occur.” The bill also specifies requirements for the placement, font size, and method of delivery of the disclaimer, as well as its inclusion in metadata.
The bill includes exceptions to protect First Amendment rights of libraries, educational institutions, and specific news and media outlets, provided they adhere to certain conditions, such as bona fide news coverage or routine publication with disclaimers.
“This (bill) is very narrow. I think some of the bills that were introduced last year were very broad,” Cook said. “That’s why we did the research that we did at the Secretary of State’s Office to ensure that candidates are protected from this type of science, but at the same time not infringing on a person’s First Amendment rights.”
Violators could face a misdemeanor charge and, if convicted, could be subject to a $1,000 fine, along with potential civil penalties. The bill requires proof that the distributor of the synthetic media “knows” that it falsely represents an individual. An amendment introduced by state Sen. Ryan Weld, R-Brooke, was approved by the committee to include instances where the person “has reason to know” of the media’s falsity.
Complaints regarding the use of AI and synthetic media would be directed to the State Election Commission through the Secretary of State’s Office. State Sen. Patricia Rucker, R-Jefferson, inquired how it could be determined whether someone violated the proposed law.
“Let’s say I claim that this was used against me, and I claim that this is artificial, I never said such and such. How do you determine that it was artificially created,” Rucker asked.
Cook responded, “There is a way actually when you look at…what metadata is. That’s the data about the data. And that allows us to track this media as part of our investigation. In other words, it would work in conjunction with our subpoena power going after service providers to find out if they followed the rules.”
