Election Law - Actions to Influence an Election - Social Media Platform Algorithms and Bots Purchased by Foreign Nationals
Summary
SB697 would expand Maryland election law to address two forms of online election influence: social media platform algorithmic amplification and the use of bots by foreign nationals. First, it creates a rebuttable presumption that a social media platform has made an in-kind independent expenditure if it knowingly and purposefully alters its algorithm to amplify political content benefiting a clearly identified candidate, without a legitimate business purpose or standard editorial policy and without coordination with the candidate. If that presumption applies, the platform may be treated as having made an independent expenditure for campaign finance purposes, with the value measured by the fair market value of boosting content.
The bill also prohibits foreign nationals from using bots to publish, distribute, or disseminate campaign material online to influence an election, or to artificially amplify political content to users of an online platform for that purpose. It requires certain persons who use bots to disclose that fact conspicuously on campaign material, and authorizes the State Board of Elections to seek removal of a bot for violations. The bill defines key terms such as social media platform, political content, bot, and foreign national, and applies only to candidates for public State or local offices in Maryland.
Impact
SB697 would amend the Maryland Election Law Article by adding a new section on social media algorithm manipulation and by revising existing provisions on bots and foreign nationals. It would create new reporting, enforcement, and penalty mechanisms under campaign finance law, including potential misdemeanor liability and civil penalties for platforms deemed to have made undisclosed independent expenditures, with penalties directed to the Fair Campaign Financing Fund. It also authorizes the State Administrator and State Board of Elections to investigate, subpoena records, hold hearings, issue public findings, and refer willful violations for prosecution.
Sentiment
The available legislative record suggests the bill was generally well received. The Senate committee reported it favorably with amendments, the Senate adopted the committee report, and the bill later passed third reading unanimously by a 45-0 vote. That voting history indicates broad support for the bill’s election-integrity goals and little visible opposition in the recorded proceedings.
Contention
The main points of contention inherent in the bill concern free-speech and platform-governance issues, even though no committee transcript is provided. The most significant issue is the presumption that algorithmic amplification by a social media platform can be treated as a campaign expenditure, which could raise questions about whether ordinary content-ranking or moderation decisions are being regulated as political spending. Another likely area of concern is the foreign-national bot prohibition, especially the scope of what counts as artificial amplification and the extent of State Board investigative authority. The bill attempts to address some of these concerns by allowing rebuttal of the presumption, exempting legitimate business purposes and organic virality, and stating that it does not impose duties on internet service providers.