In the beginning
We are pleased to welcome you to the holiday edition of the Political Law Playbook! While everyone takes some time to relax and spend time with their families as we come to the end of the year 2023, we thought it would be appropriate to share some light holiday reading that focuses on recent developments in political law that are of interest in Washington, DC and further afield. The new policy that Meta has implemented on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for political advertisements, the new code of ethics that the United States Supreme Court has implemented, and a statute in Michigan that is the first of its type about the voting rights of felons are all highlighted in this edition.
Elections at the federal level and campaign support
The use of artificial intelligence will be required of political advertisers by Meta. A new policy was released by Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, last month. The regulation mandates that political advertisers must declare any instances in which they have employed artificial intelligence or other digital means to make commercials. When a social problem, electoral, or political advertisement involves a “photorealistic image or video, or realistic-sounding audio” that was digitally created or manipulated, marketers on the platform will be required to publish this information beginning the next year.
Changes that are “inconsequential or immaterial” to the claims or issues expressed in platform communications, such as changes or adjustments related to image size or sharpness, are not required to be disclosed by advertisers. However, advertisers are not required to report changes for which they are responsible. In addition, Meta intends to insert notices into covered advertisements in the event that sponsors disclose that certain content has been digitally created or altered.
There is “substantial evidence” of wrongdoing and improper campaign finance practices, according to the report that was compiled by the House Ethics Committee on George Santos. A report on the alleged misconduct of former Representative George Santos (R-NY) was recently released by the House Ethics Committee. The committee concluded that there was substantial evidence that the now-expelled former congressman knowingly filed false disclosure reports with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and misused campaign funds from his 2022 run for Congress.
Santos had earlier submitted a letter to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) indicating that inconsistencies in his reports were the fault of his campaign treasurer, Nancy Marks. However, the report from the Ethics Committee discovered that Santos assisted Marks in falsifying those records for the campaign. In addition, the study alleges that Santos redirected campaign contributions to his personal accounts, lied to contributors as well as his political committees, and was completely useless throughout the process of the investigation. As of the first of December, Santos was kicked out of the House of Representatives legislature.
Ethics and Lobbying at the Federal Level
Senators Warren and Brown are urging the Securities and Exchange Commission to mandate that public companies disclose their lobbying activities. In a letter that was recently written to Gary Gensler, the Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) urged him to establish rules that would require public firms to report their lobbying expenditures through the securities disclosure process. The senators argue that the lobbying activity of a corporation is of significant relevance to the investors of that firm and that the Securities and Exchange Commission needs to mandate stringent disclosure regulations to guarantee that investors have access to the information in question.
The senators specifically requested that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issue a rule that would update Regulation S-K to require registered companies to disclose, as applicable, any lobbying strategy, the total amount of direct or indirect contributions to registered state and federal lobbyists, and any material risks related to or arising from the registrant’s lobbying strategy and expenditures.
The United States Supreme Court Affirms the First Code of Ethics — Following a flurry of criticism from transparency groups and political advocacy groups over the past year, the United States Supreme Court recently issued its first written Code of Ethics. This came about as a result of the criticism that was directed toward the court. Although all nine justices have reached a consensus on the policy, it does not appear to impose any significant additional disclosure requirements on the members of the Court.
Furthermore, compliance and enforcement are left entirely up to each individually appointed justice. The newly enacted rule is almost identical to the rule of Conduct for United States Judges, which applies to all other federal judges. However, it has been modified to accommodate the peculiarities of the United States Supreme Court. The absence of enforcement and investigative procedures in the new code has resulted in many of the Court’s most outspoken detractors demanding for extra action. This is although the new code is a historically significant document.
