FCC Regulation Of AI In Political Ads Is Bad From Every Angle 

Efforts in Congress to ban the use of AI in political ads have largely stalled. So, naturally, the White House is attempting an end-around through the Federal Communications Commission.  

While not an outright ban, the FCC’s proposal to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in political ads is an example of Washington bureaucrats not understanding technology at its finest. The proposal would stifle both speech and innovation. And aside from being a bad idea, the issue is outside the purview of the FCC. 

The commission should abandon this misguided effort. 

What the FCC is proposing would create an arbitrary distinction between political and issue ads using AI content and those using non-AI content.  

That’s a double-header of bad policy. 

First, it would discourage the use of a valuable technology for no good policy end. If a candidate or campaign wants to mislead the public via advertising, history clearly demonstrates they don’t need AI to do it. 

Perhaps even worse, the proposed rule would itself mislead the public by creating the impression that AI-generated content is somehow inherently suspect. 

AI is a tool. It can be used for good or ill, like any other tool. 

Most modern voters have at least basic understanding and expectation of what artificial intelligence is. They also have a gut instinct about how to take anything in a political ad with a grain of salt. 

But the FCC would define AI so broadly that it includes tools such as Photoshop that have been in use for decades. 

This regulatory overreach would thus have the opposite effect from its alleged goal – instead of alerting viewers to “deep fakes,” it would label run-of-the-mill political ads as “AI-generated,” deceptively casting doubt in viewers’ minds as to their veracity. 

The FCC justifies this overreach by citing the spread of misinformation. 

But when it comes to political and issue ads, the Federal Election Commission already has authority to regulate such content. The FEC has chosen not to take up new rulemaking on this topic for this upcoming election. 

Beyond that, tools already exist to combat disinformation, and they don’t require ignoring the law or suppressing speech.  

Rapid response and voter common sense are better defenses than the government deciding who has a right to say what. 

Instead of building confidence in the electoral process, the FCC’s proposed AI disclosure requirement is more likely to create an environment of suspicion and skepticism that undermines the integrity of our elections and fosters distrust in political messaging at a time when the process is already rife with distrust.  

Allowing the FCC to stick its nose where it doesn’t belong could also set a dangerous precedent for federal agencies to justify further intrusions into the realm of free expression. 

With this proposal, the FCC demonstrates it has no understanding of political ads, common political ad tools, artificial intelligence software, or First Amendment case law regarding disclaimers and political speech. 

Maybe that’s why Congress has repeatedly declined to pass legislation authorizing the FCC to require disclosures in political ads. 

The FCC doesn’t have the authority or expertise to deal with this issue. And even if it did, it would be a bad idea. 

It’s a classic case of a solution in search of a problem. There’s no evidence AI is having any effect on political advertising, or that voters can’t discern for themselves what is and isn’t legitimate. 

We all want fair and secure elections. But the FCC’s proposals would stifle the development of beneficial AI technologies, hinder U.S. leadership in this emerging field, and curtail individuals’ free speech rights, without making our elections one iota more fair or more secure.  

We can figure out a way to preserve the integrity of our elections without discouraging the growth of new technologies. Instead of starving AI of oxygen, the federal government should foster a regulatory environment that breathes life into the technology’s potential.  

And the FCC should leave the regulation of elections to the Federal Election Commission. 

James Czerniawski is a senior policy analyst in technology and innovation at Americans for Prosperity.