That law, which passed the Legislature with bipartisan majorities, was signed last week by the governor. It requires any political ad that uses synthetic media — also known as deepfakes — to disclose it clearly in the ad.
If it contains a manipulated image in a printed ad, it must say so in letters at least as big as any other letters in the ad. If it contains a manipulated audio track, it must have an easily understood, spoken warning at the beginning and end of the commercial. If it has a manipulated video clip, the printed disclosure must appear for the duration of the commercial.
Failure to include those disclosures could give an opponent whose voice or likeness appears in the ad grounds to sue. Such a case would take precedence over most others waiting in line in the courts.
The law doesn’t make it illegal to make you look or sound better, or to put false words into your opponent’s mouth. The state Supreme Court, after all, has ruled that lying in campaigns is protected political speech, which can be countered in the marketplace of ideas that a campaign is supposed to be.
The notification law is more like the truth-in-labeling requirement that lets you know whether that pricey salmon fillet at the supermarket comes from a wild coho or a farm-raised Atlantic salmon.
Looking ahead to 2024
While some candidates are preparing for this year’s election, others are in or thinking of joining the scramble for a major shift in Washington statewide offices coming in 2024. With Gov. Jay Inslee announcing he will leave after three terms, the opening at the top already has drawn two other statewide officials: Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Public Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz. Democratic State Sen. Manka Dhingra, who isn’t up for reelection next year, announced a campaign for AG.
With the political dominoes falling, the state Public Disclosure Commission is considering rules for candidates moving money leftover from a past campaign into a future one. Candidates tend to park their leftover campaign money into “surplus accounts,” generally a slush fund with few rules for how it can be spent.
They can use the money to run for a different office, but must first get the approval from the donor — which is not usually a big deal because donors probably think of the money as already spent. But until now, a candidate could move all of those approved contributions into their account for the new campaign as a lump sum contribution, the same as if the candidate was running for reelection to the office the donor originally gave the money for.
That made it hard for the average voter to track the original source of the money, and didn’t count against the contribution limits that donor must follow for the new campaign. Under new guidance, surplus money being moved to a campaign for a different office will have to be attributed to the donor who gave it to the old campaign, and will be counted toward the limit the donor is under for the new campaign.
This is a bigger deal for some than others.
Ferguson has some $2.7 million in his surplus account that could be moved into the gubernatorial campaign, while Dhingra has more than $220,000 and Franz has about $26,500.
