Gov. Armstrong signs 2 bills affecting North Dakota political communications, advertising
North Dakota lawmakers meet in the House chamber. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)
Gov. Kelly Armstrong signed two bills last week that will change laws surrounding political communications and advertisements in North Dakota.
House Bill 1167, sponsored by Rep. Jonathan Warrey, R-Casselton, would require a disclaimer in capital letters on any political communication or political advertisement created wholly or in part by artificial intelligence tools.
The bill would include advertisements and communications involving political candidates, political committees, political parties and initiated ballot committees or petitions.
'With capital letters, (House Bill) 1167 is a step forward in setting perimeters for the use of AI within political communications,' said Rep. Austen Schauer, R-West Fargo.
The House unanimously passed the bill in February. The Senate unanimously passed the bill in March.
Another bill signed by Armstrong, House Bill 1204, expands state law against publishing knowingly false political advertisements.
If a person 'knowingly, or with reckless disregard for its truth' publishes an 'untrue, deceptive or misleading' political advertisement or news release, they could be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, according to the bill.
Fedorchak claims 'election interference' over false text messages
The bill expands the types of media covered under the law to include text messages, phone calls and social media posts, in addition to radio, television, newspapers, pamphlets and billboards, among others.
The bill was amended on the floor of the Senate by Sen. Sean Cleary, R-Bismarck, former campaign manager for North Dakota U.S. Rep. Julie Fedorchak.
On the day of the 2024 primary election, anonymous text messages were sent to North Dakota voters saying Fedorchak had dropped out of the race, which she did not.
'Knowingly spreading falsehoods about an opponent undermines the integrity of our elections,' Cleary said.
On the House floor, Rep. Colette Brown, D-Warwick, said, in today's political climate, misinformation can spread faster than ever before.
'Whether on social media, television or traditional campaign materials, this bill ensures that when someone deliberately publishes falsehoods about a candidate, a ballot measure, or any election-related issue, they can be held responsible,' Brown said.
The bill passed the House unanimously in February and the Senate on a 45-1 vote in March.
The new laws will take effect Aug. 1.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' could wreck Utah's groundbreaking AI laws
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget package could derail the state's groundbreaking artificial intelligence laws unless it is changed. The 1,000-page bill that passed the House last month includes a 10-year prohibition on AI regulations. An updated Senate version removed the all-out ban but conditioned $500 million in AI infrastructure grants on states pausing enforcement of AI laws. Behind these provisions is a desire by some lawmakers to prevent a nationwide patchwork of AI regulations that hampers innovation amid competition with China. But Cox, and Utah's top tech policymakers, said the approach taken by Trump's bill interferes with the state's right to react to rapidly evolving technologies. 'Our hope is that the last version of this bill that passes, whatever that looks like, will allow for the smart type of regulation that we're doing in Utah, and prevent the bad kind of regulation that would stop AI from reaching its fullest potential,' Cox said Tuesday during a monthly PBS broadcast. Utah has been recognized around the world for having the 'first and smartest of the AI regulations that have been proposed,' according to Cox. These policies include bills that create a state-run AI policy lab, clarify consumer protection liability for AI and require AI disclosures in industries like finance and mental health. The governor said that multiple members of the U.S. House have told his team that they were not aware of the AI moratorium when they voted on the bill. Members of the White House and Senate have also said that they don't want the 'BBB bill' to eliminate Utah's law, Cox said. 'AI companies actually support what we're doing because they recognize that this is the right way to do AI regulation as opposed to just piecemeal,' Cox said. Cox agreed that 'a hodgepodge' of AI laws around the country would cause the U.S. to 'fall behind and we would lose this global race that is happening right now.' But he said a moratorium on AI policy shouldn't come at the expense of Utah's novel approach which doesn't actually tell AI companies how they can develop their models. Utah Rep. Doug Fiefia, R-Herriman, said the problem goes beyond counterproductive policy. It targets the foundation of states rights that has allowed Utah to lead out on so many issues, according to Fiefia, a freshman lawmaker who previously worked at Google. 'States are laboratories for innovation when it comes to policy, and I believe that the federal government should not overreach on this process and allow it to work,' Fiefia said. 'We will not give over our control because the federal government believes that it's the right thing to do to win this race.' On Tuesday, Utah House legislative leadership, and 62 state senators and representatives, sent a letter authored by Fiefia to Utah's congressional delegation arguing that the moratorium hindered 'Utah's nationally recognized efforts to strike the right balance between innovation and consumer protection.' Not only would the moratorium harm state efforts to legislate guardrails, it would also hurt businesses that are using AI responsibly by allowing their competitors to engage in unethical behavior, according to Fiefia. States have shown they are more nimble than the federal government when they need to adapt to change, Fiefia said. And this is the approach Fiefia believes Utah has demonstrated in opening up legal pathways for innovation while updating the law for the threats posed by AI. 'Just because we want to move fast in this global arms race of AI doesn't mean we can't do so with a seat belt,' Fiefia said. 'I believe that we can both win this AI race, but also doing it in a thoughtful and meaningful way.' The AI moratorium faces procedural hurdles in addition to ideological pushback. Utah Sen. Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, pointed out that reconciliation bills are meant only to amend the annual budget and not make substantive policy shifts. Some senators have alleged that the AI moratorium does not comply with the 'Byrd Rule,' a procedural requirement that prohibits 'nonbudgetary' additions during the budget 'reconciliation' process. Cullimore, who was the sponsor behind most of Utah's AI legislation, was in Washington, D.C., last week, speaking with members of the House Commerce Committee, which oversaw the inclusion of the AI moratorium provisions. The intentions behind the moratorium, Cullimore said, were to prevent states from implementing what are called 'foundational regulations' that restrict the kind of technology AI companies can develop. Utah's laws do not do this, according to Cullimore, who also signed Fiefia's letter, but they would still be sidelined by the 'big beautiful bill' even if the moratorium is replaced by the conditioned federal funding. 'I think the drafting of the moratorium was so broad that it potentially encompassed all of that stuff,' he said. 'So I hope that that we can refine the text a little bit, and then if they want to put those conditions in on foundational regulation, I think that'd be appropriate.'
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cramer: GOP has no ‘stomach' for Medicare changes in Trump megabill
Senate Republicans appear less likely to try to make changes to Medicare Advantage as part of their massive tax and spending bill, Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said Wednesday. Cramer raised the idea of targeting Medicare Advantage for additional savings last week after a closed-door caucus meeting, saying the program is ideal for reform because it is rife with waste, fraud and abuse. The House-passed bill would cut more than $800 billion from Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, but some GOP lawmakers argue that other mandatory spending programs, such as Medicare, should also be reviewed for 'waste' to further reduce the cost of the bill. But Medicare has long been considered a political third rail, and Cramer on Wednesday said he doesn't think Republicans want to try to go near it — even though Medicare Advantage changes have bipartisan support. 'I don't think there's a stomach for it. I think that the president doesn't want to touch Medicare,' Cramer said. When Republicans first floated the idea of Medicare changes last week, Senate Democrats jumped to open a new line of attack. Politically, it didn't matter that Republicans were discussing bipartisan legislation sponsored by Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) that would save billions of dollars by reducing overpayments to private Medicare Advantage plans. The legislation would crack down on a practice called 'upcoding' through which insurers classify patients as sicker so the government will reimburse them at a higher rate. Cramer noted it's difficult for members to try to talk about the changes. 'To be honest, I'm the only one I know that talks about it,' Cramer said. 'I just don't know how we get to where we want to get without going after some of the bigger drivers of the debt and deficit.' Senate Republicans will be briefed by Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) on Wednesday afternoon, ahead of the release of legislative text. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP Senators Freak Out When Asked About Trump's Military Parade Costing $45 Million
WASHINGTON – They snapped. They stared off into space. They zipped into Senate elevators and smiled as the doors closed with them safely inside. This is how nearly a dozen Senate Republicans reacted Wednesday when asked the simplest question: Do you plan to attend President Donald Trump's military parade in D.C. on Saturday, and are you comfortable with its estimated $45 million price tag? HuffPost is committed to fearlessly covering the Trump administration. and become a member today. 'I won't be here in town, but I wish I was,' lamented Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.). Asked about the tens of millions of dollars the event is going to cost taxpayers, Fischer walked into a nearby Senate elevator and gazed into nothingness as the doors closed. At least the Nebraska senator spoke. Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) clocked in at eight seconds of silence in response to HuffPost asking the same question. With a big grin, Budd slipped into another elevator and stood there, waiting for the doors to close. 'Nope,' Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) said, fidgeting on his phone, when asked if he planned to attend. He let out a big sigh when asked about the parade's price tag, and started talking about unrelated legislation. 'I'm focused on the trillions right now, which is the reconciliation bill,' Young said. 'So I think my constituents would assess that my priorities are appropriate.' Asked if that means he is comfortable with how much Trump's military event will cost taxpayers, he snapped: 'I answered the question.' When HuffPost pointed out he didn't actually answer the question, Young interrupted, 'I answered the question I wanted to answer!' Alrighty then, sir! Saturday's parade is being billed as a celebration of the Army's 250th anniversary, but it's also timed with Trump's 79th birthday. The event will feature thousands of soldiers, 150 military vehicles and more than 50 aircraft being rolled around the streets of D.C. Millions of people nationwide will be protesting Trump at the same time as his parade, in response to his harsh crackdown on immigration enforcement and his decision to deploy the U.S. military to Los Angeles to respond to unrest there. The 'No Kings Day' protests are happening in all 50 states and in more than 1,500 cities, though not in D.C. An obvious reason Senate Republicans don't want to talk about the cost of this parade is that they've been on a tear about slashing so-called government waste since Trump took office, and a massive military parade for the president isn't exactly essential. 'I might be,' Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said of attending the parade. As for its costs? 'Uh, I have not looked into the price.' But GOP senators also don't want to say anything that will anger the president, even if deep down, they're not happy about spending tens of millions of dollars on something that the second-highest-ranking U.S. general told Trump in his first term is 'what dictators do.' So they seem to be opting for going silent or fleeing the scene. 'I am committed in Boise,' Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) said of his plans for Saturday. 'I appreciate the Army and the fact that they're 250 years old.' As for the cost of the military parade, he just walked away, saying, 'That's all you're going to get.' Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) dismissed any conversation at all about it, saying she doesn't 'do hallway interviews.' (Most conversations with the press happen in Senate hallways.) 'No comment,' said Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). 'No comment.' To be sure, a few Republicans said they were fine with the costs to put on the event. 'Listen, the Army has done a lot for us,' said Sen. Markwayne Mullen (R-Okla.). 'The idea that we get to celebrate their 250th birthday, I think they deserve to have a good celebration.' He won't be there, though. 'It is my 28th wedding anniversary,' he said. 'I choose marriage.' Sen. Jim Justice ( said he's very supportive of 'a celebration of our president's birthday,' and the costs of the parade don't bother him because he wants it to look impressive to people in other countries. 'I mean, if you go out there with, you know, two jeeps and an M-16, you know, how does the world perceive that?' Justice said. 'Come on now, this is America, you know?… If we're going to do it, let's put on a big show.' Out of 14 GOP senators, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was the only one HuffPost talked to who criticized holding the parade. It's not just because of its hefty costs, he said, but also because he doesn't think 'the symbolism of tanks and missiles' represents what the United States is all about. 'If you ask me about a military parade, all the images that come to mind, the first images, are of the Soviet Union and North Korea,' he said.
