United States - Oregon - AI in Campaigns (SB 1571)

Overview

Oregon Senate Bill 1571, enacted in 2024, addresses the increasing prevalence of artificial intelligence (AI) in political discourse by regulating the use of synthetic media in campaign communications. The legislation, which became effective on March 27, 2024, due to an emergency declaration, aims to promote transparency and safeguard the integrity of elections by requiring a prominent disclosure when AI-generated or manipulated content is used to depict individuals in political advertisements. It introduces new provisions to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 260, which governs election laws, and specifically amends ORS 260.345. The bill's passage reflects a growing national concern among states regarding the potential for deepfake technology to mislead voters and undermine public trust in election outcomes. Senator Aaron Woods, the chief sponsor, highlighted the importance of Oregon keeping pace with technological advancements to protect democracy from misinformation. The law provides a framework for enforcement, empowering the Secretary of State and, under certain circumstances, the Attorney General, to take action against violations, with civil penalties reaching up to $10,000. Exemptions are provided for certain entities and types of content, such as satire or bona fide news coverage that includes appropriate disclaimers.

Definitions

Oregon SB 1571 establishes specific definitions to clarify the scope of its application:

• Campaign communication: This term refers to any communication that is made in support of or in opposition to a clearly identified candidate or measure, as defined in ORS 260.005 (10)(c). Notably, the definition specifies that, notwithstanding ORS 260.005 (10)(c)(B)(i), a campaign communication may involve aggregate expenditures of any amount, ensuring broad applicability regardless of spending thresholds. (Oregon Legislative Information System)
• Synthetic media: This is a core definition of the bill, referring to 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. The manipulation must be such that it creates a realistic but false image, audio recording, or video recording that produces two key outcomes: (A) A depiction that a reasonable person would believe is of a real individual in appearance, speech, or conduct but that did not actually occur in reality; and (B) A materially different understanding or impression than a reasonable person would have from the unaltered, original version of the image, audio recording, or video recording. This definition replaced an earlier, broader definition of 'artificial intelligence' during the legislative process to focus specifically on deceptive manipulated media. (Oregon Legislative Information System)

Governance and Institutional Framework

The enforcement and oversight of Oregon SB 1571 are primarily vested in two state agencies and the state's judicial system:

• Secretary of State: As Oregon's chief elections officer, the Secretary of State is empowered to institute proceedings to enjoin any violation of the provisions of this section. The Secretary of State also holds explicit rulemaking authority to prescribe the procedures for processing complaints and implementing Section 1 of the 2024 Act. This authority allows the office to develop detailed regulations for disclosure requirements and enforcement mechanisms. (Oregon Legislative Information System)
• Attorney General: The Attorney General may institute proceedings to enjoin violations of this section in specific circumstances. This applies when the alleged violation involves the Secretary of State, a candidate for the office of the Secretary of State, or any political committee or person supporting the Secretary of State or a candidate for that office. This provision ensures an independent enforcement mechanism when the primary enforcement authority (Secretary of State) could have a conflict of interest. The Attorney General is also responsible for examining complaints and initiating prosecution or civil proceedings when a violation is determined, particularly for alleged violations subject to civil penalties. (Oregon Legislative Information System)
• Circuit Courts: In any action brought under this section, the circuit court has the authority to enter injunctions, prohibitions, restraining orders, or take any other actions deemed proper. These judicial remedies can be issued without requiring proof of injury or damage to any person. The circuit court is mandated to give priority to the hearing and determination of such cases and shall award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. Upon proof of any violation, the court is also responsible for imposing civil penalties. (Oregon Legislative Information System)

Key Focus Areas

• Disclosure Requirement for Synthetic Media: The central tenet of SB 1571 is the mandatory disclosure of synthetic media in campaign communications. Any campaign communication that includes an image, audio recording, or video recording intentionally manipulated using artificial intelligence techniques or similar digital technology to create a realistic but false depiction of an individual's appearance, speech, or conduct, must include a clear statement that the media has been manipulated. This ensures voters are aware when content is not genuine. (Oregon Legislative Information System)
• Prevention of Deceptive Deepfakes in Elections: The legislation directly targets the use of deepfake technology to create misleading content in political campaigns. By requiring disclosure, the law aims to prevent the dissemination of fabricated content that could materially alter a reasonable person's understanding or impression of a candidate or measure, thereby protecting the electoral process from misinformation. (Oregon Legislative Information System)
• Enforcement and Penalties: The bill establishes clear mechanisms for addressing violations. The Secretary of State or the Attorney General can initiate proceedings, and circuit courts are authorized to issue injunctions and impose civil penalties. This provides a legal recourse against those who fail to comply with the disclosure requirements. (Oregon Legislative Information System)
• Exemptions for Certain Content and Entities: To balance free speech and journalistic integrity with the need for transparency, SB 1571 includes several exemptions. These include:
  • Providers of interactive computer services or information services, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 230(f) and 47 U.S.C. 153, respectively. (Oregon Legislative Information System)
  • Radio and television stations that include synthetic media as part of a bona fide newscast, interview, documentary, or coverage of a bona fide news event, provided they clearly indicate that there are questions about the authenticity in the communication. (Oregon Legislative Information System)
  • Radio and television broadcasters, websites, and online platforms if they are paid to broadcast synthetic media, implying a distinction for platforms acting as conduits rather than creators or direct disseminators of deceptive content. (Oregon Legislative Information System)
  • Regularly published newspapers or magazines that publish synthetic media if they include a statement about the campaign communication not accurately representing a ballot issue or candidate. (Oregon Legislative Information System)
  • Content that constitutes satire, parody, or is substantially dependent on the ability of an individual to physically or verbally impersonate a candidate without the use of technology. This exemption protects artistic expression and traditional forms of political commentary. (Oregon Legislative Information System)

Implementation Framework

Oregon SB 1571 became effective immediately upon its passage on March 27, 2024, due to an emergency clause. This immediate effectiveness underscores the legislature's view of the urgency in addressing AI-generated misinformation in elections. The Secretary of State is explicitly granted rulemaking authority to adopt rules necessary for the implementation of Section 1 of the Act. This includes establishing procedures for processing complaints and ensuring compliance with the disclosure requirements. The process for filing a complaint is outlined in ORS 260.345, which was amended by this Act. Any elector may file a written complaint with a filing officer, including the Secretary of State or, for certain violations, the Attorney General. Complaints and evidence can be filed electronically. The Secretary of State or Attorney General will then examine the complaint and conduct any necessary investigation to determine if a violation has occurred. The Act adds Section 1 of the 2024 Act to and makes it a part of ORS chapter 260, integrating it into the existing framework of Oregon election laws. (Oregon Legislative Information System)

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation of compliance with SB 1571 largely fall under the purview of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. These offices are responsible for receiving and investigating complaints regarding the undisclosed use of synthetic media in campaign communications. The process begins with electors filing written complaints, which can include evidence and be submitted electronically. The Secretary of State, through rulemaking authority, is expected to establish detailed procedures for processing these complaints. The Attorney General steps in for investigations involving the Secretary of State or candidates for that office, ensuring an impartial review. While the bill does not explicitly detail a formal, periodic 'evaluation' framework beyond complaint-driven enforcement, the continuous processing of complaints and the potential for legal proceedings serve as the primary mechanisms for monitoring adherence to the disclosure requirements. The emphasis on injunctions and civil penalties also suggests an active enforcement posture rather than a passive monitoring one. (Oregon Legislative Information System)

Penalties, Liability, and Appeals

Oregon SB 1571 outlines specific penalties and legal remedies for violations:

• Civil Penalties: Upon proof of any violation of the disclosure requirements for synthetic media, a circuit court is mandated to impose a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000. All penalties collected under this section are to be paid into the State Treasury and credited to the General Fund. This financial penalty serves as a deterrent against non-compliance. (Oregon Legislative Information System)
• Injunctive Relief: The Secretary of State or the Attorney General (in cases involving the Secretary of State) may institute proceedings to enjoin any violation of this section. The circuit court has broad authority to enter injunctions, prohibitions, or restraining orders, or to take any other actions it deems proper. Such injunctive relief can be issued without requiring proof of actual injury or damage to any person, allowing for proactive measures to prevent further dissemination of undisclosed synthetic media. (Oregon Legislative Information System)
• Exclusive Remedy: The remedies provided by this section are explicitly stated as the exclusive remedy for a violation of this section. This means that other forms of legal action, such as private civil suits for damages, may not be pursued under this specific statute, channeling enforcement through the established governmental and judicial processes. (Oregon Legislative Information System)
• Attorney Fees: In any action brought under this section, the circuit court is required to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party, both at trial and on appeal. This provision incentivizes parties to pursue legitimate claims and ensures that successful litigants are not unduly burdened by legal costs. (Oregon Legislative Information System)
• Complaint Process and Timelines: An elector may file a written complaint with a filing officer (Secretary of State or Attorney General). For alleged violations subject to a civil penalty under this Act, a complaint must be filed no later than 90 days following the election at which the violation occurred, or 90 days following the date the violation is alleged to have occurred, whichever is later. The Secretary of State or Attorney General will promptly examine the complaint and investigate. (Oregon Legislative Information System)

Relationship to Other Instruments

Oregon SB 1571 is integrated into the existing legal framework of the state, specifically within election laws. The Act:

• Amends ORS 260.345: This existing statute deals with the filing and processing of complaints regarding election law violations. SB 1571 modifies ORS 260.345 to incorporate the new provisions related to synthetic media, outlining how complaints concerning these violations are to be handled. (Oregon Legislative Information System)
• Adds to ORS Chapter 260: Section 1 of the 2024 Act, which contains the core definitions and disclosure requirements for synthetic media, is added to and made a part of ORS chapter 260. This chapter broadly covers campaign finance, election offenses, and enforcement, ensuring that the new regulations are situated within the established body of Oregon's election laws. (Oregon Legislative Information System)
• State-Level Regulation: As a state bill, SB 1571 operates within the confines of Oregon's state constitution and statutory authority. It complements federal laws that may address AI and election integrity, such as the Federal Communications Commission's ruling against AI in robocalls, by providing specific state-level regulations for campaign communications. (OPB) It is part of a broader trend of states enacting legislation to address deepfakes in elections. (OPB)

International Alignment

While Oregon SB 1571 is a state-level regulation within the United States, its focus on transparently addressing AI-generated misinformation in elections aligns with a growing global awareness and concern about the impact of synthetic media on democratic processes. Many jurisdictions worldwide are grappling with similar challenges posed by advancements in artificial intelligence and the potential for deepfakes to influence public opinion and electoral outcomes. Senator Aaron Woods, the bill's chief sponsor, noted that Oregon is joining a number of other states that have introduced or passed similar legislation. This indicates a national, rather than international, alignment in addressing this emergent technological threat to electoral integrity. The bill contributes to a developing body of law across various jurisdictions aimed at ensuring that voters can distinguish between authentic and manipulated political content, reflecting a shared objective to protect democratic discourse in the digital age. (OPB)

Implementation Timeline

Compliance Checklist

Sources and References