Public Schools - School-Based Mental Health Services - Full-Time Therapist
HB 740 would require certain campaign communications in Maryland that use or contain synthetic media to carry a clear disclosure that the image, audio, or video has been altered or modified using computer programs or similar digital technology. The bill defines “synthetic media” to include realistic but false images, audio, or video that depict a real individual or materially change how a reasonable viewer would understand that person’s appearance, speech, or conduct. The requirement applies to candidates, campaign finance entities, certain registered political actors, and their agents when they publish, distribute, or disseminate campaign material to a person in the State.
The bill specifies different disclosure formats depending on the medium. Still images must include a readable written statement; audio recordings must include a spoken disclosure at the beginning, end, and at intervals for longer recordings; and video recordings must display a visible statement throughout the video in a conspicuous location. It also amends Maryland election law to make publication or dissemination of campaign material that violates the new synthetic media disclosure rule a misdemeanor offense under the existing enforcement framework for campaign finance and election law violations.
HB 740 would add a new section to Maryland’s Election Law governing campaign materials that use generative AI or other digital tools to create deceptive synthetic media. It would expand the list of prohibited campaign material violations under § 13-602 and subject violators to the existing penalties for election-law misdemeanors, including fines, possible imprisonment, and temporary ineligibility for public or party office. The bill would primarily affect candidates, campaign finance entities, political committees, and agents involved in campaign advertising and messaging, while also creating compliance obligations for anyone disseminating such materials into Maryland.
The bill’s overall posture is preventive and regulatory, reflecting concern about deceptive AI-generated political content and the need for transparency in elections. The text suggests a broad bipartisan or at least cross-faction interest in disclosure rather than an outright ban on synthetic media. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate in the materials beyond the bill’s stated purpose and structure.
The main point of contention likely concerns how broadly “synthetic media” is defined and whether the disclosure requirements could burden political speech, campaign advertising, or rapidly evolving digital tools. Another likely issue is enforceability, especially for audio and video disclosures that must remain visible or audible in a conspicuous way. The bill’s supporters would likely emphasize voter protection and anti-deception safeguards, while critics may argue that the rules could be overinclusive, difficult to apply to satire or edited content, or create compliance risks for campaigns using legitimate digital production techniques.