New Mexico is facing a legal challenge over a 2024 law aimed at regulating political advertisements created with artificial intelligence. The legislation, part of the state’s Campaign Reporting Act, requires that AI-generated media depicting a candidate or ballot question in state, county, or judicial-retention elections carry clear disclaimers identifying them as manipulated content. The law imposes criminal and civil penalties for violations, including fines of up to $1,000 per social media post.

The measure defines political advertisements broadly as any communication “published, disseminated, distributed or displayed to the public,” though it does not explicitly clarify what constitutes the “public.” Notably, the law does not require the state to demonstrate harm or intent to violate the rules in order to impose civil penalties.

The satirical website Babylon Bee has filed a lawsuit against New Mexico officials, contending that the mandatory disclaimer requirements constitute unconstitutional compelled speech. The website argues that the disclaimers undermine the comedic effect of satire, which typically involves exaggeration or misrepresentation for humor. Under current rules, images or videos must display an “easily readable” text disclaimer for the entire duration of the content, while audio recordings must repeat an “easily heard” notice at the beginning, end, and every two minutes in between. The law does not define what qualifies as “easily readable” or “easily heard,” encouraging the use of prominent disclaimers to ensure compliance.

Enforcing the law falls to the New Mexico State Ethics Commission, which acts as investigator, adjudicator, and penalty assessor. The commission has the authority to initiate investigations on its own initiative. In response to inquiries, the commission described the lawsuit as “baseless” and maintained that the law does not require disclaimers for communications not intended to support or oppose a candidate in a covered election, suggesting it would not apply to political parody or satire.

However, the legislation’s language complicates such exemptions. While it suggests that parody and satire may be exempt if they include disclaimers meeting the law’s strict standards, this paradox effectively mandates disclaimers for satirical content as well. A 2025 state attorney general review flagged this provision as likely unconstitutional. The Ethics Commission cited the law’s definitions section to defend its interpretation but declined to elaborate, and that section does not clearly support their position.

The law does provide an exemption for “news story or editorial” content, aiming to protect traditional media’s First Amendment rights. Yet, the determination of what qualifies for this exemption is left to the Ethics Commission’s discretion, raising concerns about uneven application.

The lawsuit highlights ongoing tensions about regulating AI-generated content in political discourse while balancing free speech protections. Critics argue that governmental requirements dictating how humor and satire must be presented risk infringing on fundamental rights, reminding that advances in technology do not alter the constitutional principles governing speech.