Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
REGULATE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS
Analysis available at
House Bills 5141 (H-2) and 5144 (H-1) as passed by the House http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Sponsor: Rep. Penelope Tsernoglou
House Bill 5142 as passed by the House
Sponsor: Rep. Ranjeev Puri
House Bill 5143 as passed by the House House Bill 5145 as passed by the House
Sponsor: Rep. Matthew Bierlein Sponsor: Rep. Noah Arbit
Committee: Elections
Complete to 11-4-23
BRIEF SUMMARY: Together, House Bills 5141, 5143, and 5144 would restrict the use of artificial
intelligence and manipulated media in political campaigns and would generally require
campaign advertisements and other political media to disclose of the use of artificial
intelligence systems. House Bills 5142 and 5145 are companion bills to HBs 5141 and 5144,
respectively, that would make complementary changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
FISCAL IMPACT: The bills would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the state and on local units
of government (see Fiscal Information, below).
THE APPARENT PROBLEM:
The rapidly evolving nature of artificial intelligence could pose a particular problem for
political campaigns, as content generated by artificial intelligence is becoming
indistinguishable from real-life media to an unsuspecting eye. Concerns have been raised that
without intervention and requirements for proper disclosure, “deepfakes” and other forms of
artificial intelligence that intend to mislead voters will become prevalent in campaign media.
THE CONTENT OF THE BILLS:
House Bill 5143 would amend the Michigan Campaign Finance Act to define artificial
intelligence, for purposes of the act, as a machine-based system that can make predictions,
recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments for a given set of
human-defined objectives.
The bill is tie-barred to House Bill 5141, meaning that it cannot go into effect unless HB 5141
is also enacted.
MCL 169.202
House Bill 5141 would amend the Michigan Campaign Finance Act to prohibit the use of
artificial intelligence, as defined by House Bill 5143, in campaign materials without the
required disclosures. The bill is tie-barred to House Bill 5143.
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 7
 Political advertisements
The bill would provide that if a person, committee, or other entity creates, publishes, or
originally distributes a qualified political advertisement, the advertisement would have to
clearly and conspicuously state that it was wholly or substantially generated by artificial
intelligence.
Qualified political advertisement would mean any advertisement or sponsored content
involving a candidate for federal, state, or local office in Michigan, an election to
federal, state, or local office in Michigan, or a ballot question that is made by or on
behalf of a candidate or committee and contains any visual or audio media wholly or
substantially generated with the use of artificial intelligence.
If the advertisement is a graphic communication, the statement would have to be in the same
language as the rest of the communication and appear in letters at least as large as the majority
of the text in the communication.
If the advertisement is an audio communication, the statement would have to be at least three
seconds in length and spoken in a clearly audible and intelligible manner in the same language
as the rest of the communication at either the beginning or end of the communication.
If the advertisement is a video communication that includes audio, the statement would have
to meet the requirements for an audio communication and appear for at least four seconds in
letters that are as large as the majority of any text included in the advertisement. 1
A first violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days’
imprisonment, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. For a second violation, the maximum fine would
be raised to $1,500. A third or subsequent violation would be a felony punishable by up to two
years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to $2,000, or both. Each advertisement aired or distributed
to the public in violation of these provisions would be a separate violation.
Other media
If a person creates, publishes, or distributes a communication wholly or substantially generated
by artificial intelligence that references an election, candidate, or ballot question and is not a
qualified political advertisement, the communication would have to contain the following
disclaimer:
“This communication was generated in whole or substantially by artificial
intelligence.”
A first violation by a person other than a campaign committee would be a state civil infraction,
and the person could be ordered to pay a civil fine of up to $250. A second or subsequent
offense by a person other than a committee, and any violation by a committee, would be a
misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days’ imprisonment, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.
1
If there is no text included in the video, the statement would have to be in a size that is easily readable by the average
viewer.
House Fiscal Agency HBs 5141 to 5145 as passed by the House Page 2 of 7
 If a prerecorded telephone message is wholly or substantially generated by artificial
intelligence, the message would have to contain the following disclaimer: 2
“This message was generated in whole or substantially by artificial intelligence.”
If a candidate for office has been or is likely to be injured by a violation of the bill’s provisions
regulating qualified political advertisements and other political communications, they or the
attorney general could apply to the appropriate circuit court for injunctive relief. 3
Exemptions
The bill would not apply to any of the following:
• A radio or television broadcasting station that broadcasts a qualified political
advertisement or another communication generated wholly or substantially by artificial
intelligence as part of a newscast, news interview, news documentary, or live coverage
of news events, if the broadcast clearly acknowledges in a manner that can be easily
heard or read by the average viewer that the qualified political advertisement or other
communication does not accurately represent the speech or conduct of the depicted
individual.
• A radio or television broadcasting station paid to broadcast political advertisements.
• A distribution platform such as a website, regularly published newspaper, magazine,
or other generally circulated periodical that routinely carries news and commentary of
general interest and that publishes qualified political advertisements, if the platform
has a written policy clearly stating that the qualified political advertisement must
include the required disclosure and it provides the written policy to any person,
committee, or other entity that creates, seeks to publish, or originally distributes a
qualified political advertisement. (The platform would not be liable for a violation of
the bill’s disclosure requirements if it can demonstrate that it provided the notice.)
• A qualified political advertisement that is a satire or parody.
MCL 169.247 (amended) and MCL 169.259 (proposed)
House Bill 5142 would amend the sentencing guidelines chapter of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to incorporate the proposed new felony of failing to disclose the use of artificial
intelligence in a political communication. Under the bill, a third or subsequent offense would
be a Class G felony against the public trust punishable by a statutory maximum term of
imprisonment of two years.
The bill is tie-barred to House Bill 5141, meaning that it cannot go into effect unless HB 5141
is also enacted.
MCL 777.11e
2
Currently, a prerecorded phone message advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate or for the qualification,
passage, or defeat of a ballot question must contain the contact information of the person paying for the message but
is not required to contain a disclaimer.
3
The candidate or the attorney general could apply to the circuit court for the county in which a party to the alleged
violation resides or the circuit court for the county in which a violation could deceive and influence voters in an
upcoming election.
House Fiscal Agency HBs 5141 to 5145 as passed by the House Page 3 of 7
 House Bill 5144 would amend the Michigan Election Law to prohibit the distribution of
materially deceptive media (commonly known as “deepfakes”) with the intention to influence
the outcome of an election.
Materially deceptive media would mean any image, audio, or video where all of the
following apply:
• The media falsely depicts an individual engaging in speech or conduct in which
the individual did not actually engage.
• A reasonable viewer or listener would incorrectly believe that the depicted
individual engaged in the speech or conduct.
• The media was produced by substantially relying on technical means other than
an individual’s ability to physically impersonate the depicted individual.
Under the bill, a person would be prohibited from distributing or agreeing to distribute
materially deceptive media pertaining to any federal, state, legislative, judicial, county, or local
election, including a primary election, if all of the following apply:
• The person knows the media falsely represents a depicted individual.
• The distribution occurs within 90 days before an election.
• The distribution is intended and likely to harm the reputation or electoral prospects of
a candidate.
• The distribution is intended and likely to influence voter behavior by deceiving voters
into incorrectly believing that an individual engaged in the speech or conduct depicted
in the media.
Disclaimers
The above prohibition would not apply if the media includes a disclaimer informing the viewer
that it has been manipulated to depict speech or conduct that did not occur. The bill provides
that the following disclaimer would be sufficient, but not necessary, to satisfy this requirement:
“This [image, audio, or video] has been manipulated by technical means and depicts
speech or conduct that did not occur.”
If the media is a video, the disclaimer would have to appear throughout its entirety, be clearly
visible to and readable by an observer, be in letters that are at least as large as the majority of
any text communication in the video, and be in the same language as the rest of the video. 4
If the media is audio only, the disclaimer would have to be read at the beginning and end of
the communication in a clearly spoken manner, in a pitch that the average listener could easily
hear, and in the same language as the rest of the rest of the audio.
If the media is an image, the disclaimer would have to be clearly visible to and readable by the
average viewer, and if the image contains other text, it would have to be printed in letters that
are at least as large as a majority of the other text.
4
If the video does not contain any text, the disclaimer would have to be in a size that is easily readable by the average
viewer.
House Fiscal Agency HBs 5141 to 5145 as passed by the House Page 4 of 7
 Violations
A first violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days’
imprisonment, a fine of up to $500, or both. If a subsequent violation occurs within five years,
that violation would be a felony punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to
$1,000, or both.
If a depicted individual or candidate has been or is likely to be injured by the distribution of
the materially deceptive media, that person or the attorney general could seek permanent
injunctive relief in the appropriate circuit court. 5 An organization that represents the interests
of voters who are likely to be deceived by the distribution of materially deceptive media could
also seek permanent injunctive relief. A plaintiff would have to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the defendant knew that or recklessly disregarded whether the media falsely
represents the depicted individual. In addition to permanent injunctive relief, the court could
award a prevailing plaintiff costs and attorney fees.
If a court determines that a complaint is frivolous, it would have to issue an order suspending
the defendant’s obligation to respond and order the plaintiff to show cause as to why the
complaint should not be dismissed. If the plaintiff’s response assures the court that the
complaint is not frivolous, the court would have to direct the defendant to answer to the
complaint. If the plaintiff fails to respond or their response confirms that the complaint is
frivolous, the court would have to dismiss the complaint, and it could award costs and attorney
fees to the defendant and issue any appropriate sanctions against the plaintiff or their attorney.
Proposed MCL 168.932f
House Bill 5145 would amend the sentencing guidelines chapter of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to incorporate the proposed new felony of distributing or agreeing to distribute
materially deceptive media within five years of an initial violation. Under the bill, such a
repeated offense would be a Class E felony against the public trust punishable by a statutory
maximum term of imprisonment of five years.
The bill is tie-barred to House Bill 5144, meaning that it cannot go into effect unless HB 5144
is also enacted.
MCL 777.11d
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In August 2023, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) published a petition from an
advocacy group seeking to increase federal regulation of the use of artificial intelligence to
spread disinformation during political campaigns. 6 The FEC has begun the process for a
proposed rule on this subject and has recently concluded the public comment period for the
petition.
5
The person or the attorney general could apply to the circuit court for the county in which a party to the alleged
violation resides or the circuit court for the county in which a violation could deceive and influence voters in an
upcoming election.
6
See: https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/showpdf.htm?docid=423639.
House Fiscal Agency HBs 5141 to 5145 as passed by the House Page 5 of 7
 Texas, 7 Minnesota, 8 and Washington 9 currently restrict the use of deepfakes in political media.
California passed a similar law in 2019, which was only in effect until January 1, 2023. 10
FISCAL INFORMATION:
The bills would have no fiscal impact on the Department of State or the Department of the
Attorney General.
House Bill 5141 would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the state and on local units of
government. The number of convictions that would result under provisions of the bill is not
known. Violations could be either misdemeanors, felonies, or civil infractions depending on
the circumstances and offense committed. New misdemeanor convictions would increase costs
related to county jails and/or local misdemeanor probation supervision. Costs of local
incarceration in county jails and local misdemeanor probation supervision, and how those costs
are financed, vary by jurisdiction. New felony convictions would result in increased costs
related to state prisons and state probation supervision. In fiscal year 2022, the average cost of
prison incarceration in a state facility was roughly $47,900 per prisoner, a figure that includes
various fixed administrative and operational costs. State costs for parole and felony probation
supervision averaged about $5,000 per supervised offender in the same year. Those costs are
financed with state general fund/general purpose revenue. Any increase in penal fine revenue
would increase funding for public and county law libraries, which are the constitutionally
designated recipients of those revenues. Also, revenue collected from payment of civil fines is
used to support public and county law libraries. Under section 8827(4) of the Revised
Judicature Act, $10 of the civil fine is required to be deposited into the state’s Justice System
Fund, which supports various justice-related endeavors in the judicial branch and legislative
branches of government and the Departments of State Police, Corrections, Health and Human
Services, and Treasury. The fiscal impact