H.R. 10814House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide further transparency and accountability for the use of content that is generated by artificial intelligence (generative AI) in political advertisements by requiring such advertisements to include a statement within the contents of the advertisements if generative AI was used to generate any image or video footage in the advertisements,

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide further transparency and accountability for the use of content that is generated by artificial intelligence (generative AI) in political advertisements by requiring such advertisements to include a statement within the contents of the advertisements if generative AI was used to generate any image or video footage in the advertisements, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byYvette D. ClarkeD-NY-9Introduced Oct 15, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 15, 2026) — on House Administration.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, in italics under the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Discussion

13 comments

Sort

tomas.delgadoDemoVA-4voted Nay2d ago

Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

petra.lindqvistDemoTX-19voted Nay3d ago

This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. None of that is settled by the summary.

quietriverbendDemoCA-212d ago

Agreed on substance, disagreed on timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.

n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Nay18h ago

What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.

cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Nay2d ago

Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.

civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Nay4h ago

Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. The committee report would settle it either way.

river_precinctDemoSC-2voted Yea8h ago

Where are you reading that? I've been through the summary twice and can't find it.

granite_porchDemoKY-2voted Nay1d ago

Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

river_precinctDemoSC-2voted Yea7h ago

I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

arthur_readerDemoAZ-4voted Yea1d ago

Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

leona.nakamuraDemoIL-121d ago

The sunset point is the strongest thing in this thread and nobody's answered it.

yara.novakDemoVT-ALvoted Yea9h ago

Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

granite_machinistDemoFL-15voted Yea3d ago

Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. The committee report would settle it either way.

Your position on H.R. 10814No positions yet