Key Takeaways
- An AI‑generated image of Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan used in a pro‑Angie Craig attack ad has highlighted the growing presence of artificial intelligence in Minnesota political campaigns.
- Minnesota’s 2023 deepfake law bars deceptive AI content within 90 days of a nominating convention, but its application to the Craig ad remains disputed.
- AI expert Dr. Manjeet Rege says AI is already “woven through elections” behind the scenes—drafting speeches, summarizing opposition research, and sorting voter lists—often without public notice.
- Lawmakers from both parties warn that intentional deepfakes threaten voter trust, while unintentional errors (e.g., wrong polling‑place info from AI summaries) can cause equally serious harm.
- Some legislators see benign uses, such as AI‑generated flyers for small‑business candidates, but stress that any deceptive application undermines democratic integrity.
- Campaigns have been reluctant to disclose their AI practices; high‑profile Senate and gubernatorial teams did not respond to inquiries, while the Klobuchar and Flanagan campaigns publicly condemned misleading AI use.
- As AI becomes embedded in the software campaigns already rely on, experts warn the line between optional tool and unavoidable necessity is disappearing.
Early June Incident Sparks Debate Over AI in Campaigns
In early June, a television ad produced by the North Star Dawn PAC showed Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan standing atop a pile of cash, her hand outstretched for more money. The image, later identified as AI‑generated, was part of an attack on Flanagan’s Democratic primary opponent, U.S. Rep. Angie Craig, ahead of the August 11 Senate primary. The ad quickly became a flashpoint for discussions about how artificial intelligence is creeping into political messaging, even when the content is not created directly by a campaign itself.
Minnesota’s Deepfake Law and Its Uncertain Application
Minnesota enacted a 2023 law that prohibits the dissemination of political deepfakes within 90 days of a nominating convention. Whether the Craig ad violates that statute is still under debate, particularly because the ad was sponsored by a political action committee rather than a candidate’s campaign. Legal experts note that free‑speech protections and potential lawsuits from technology companies can complicate enforcement, leaving the precise boundaries of the law unsettled as the election approaches.
Behind‑the‑Scenes AI Use: Expert Insights from Dr. Manjeet Rege
Dr. Manjeet Rege, an AI expert and professor of software engineering and data science at the University of St. Thomas, emphasized that artificial intelligence is already “woven through elections in ways most people never see or are not aware (of).” He explained that the most common applications occur backstage: AI drafts ad copy and speeches, summarizes opposition research, and sorts donor and voter lists. These tools operate largely out of public view, making their influence difficult to detect without close scrutiny.
Intentional Versus Unintentional Harms
Rege distinguished between two types of risk. “The intentional harms are the obvious ones,” he said, referring to deepfakes crafted to deceive—such as fabricated audio of false endorsements or altered images of candidates. However, he warned that “the unintentional side worries me just as much, and it gets far less attention.” He cited examples where a chatbot or AI summary confidently tells a voter the wrong polling place or deadline, noting that even harmless‑looking mistakes can erode trust when voters rely on inaccurate logistical information.
Bipartisan Concern Expressed by Sen. Zach Duckworth
Sen. Zach Duckworth (R‑Lakeville), co‑author of Minnesota’s AI nudification technology ban, predicted that a closer examination of AI use in campaigns would attract bipartisan support if lawmakers chose to revisit the issue. “We have enough trouble as it is making sure that people are getting accurate information in terms of being able to formulate their opinions and the decisions they want to make when it comes time to vote,” Duckworth remarked. He added that the last thing voters need are campaigns or outside groups using AI to purposely mislead the electorate and produce outcomes based on anything other than fact.
Potential Innocent Applications of AI
Duckworth acknowledged that not all AI use is nefarious. He suggested that a small‑business owner running a campaign might employ AI to create flyers or social‑media graphics, a use that could be considered harmless and even helpful for candidates with limited resources. This perspective underscores the challenge of regulating AI: distinguishing between beneficial efficiency tools and those that facilitate deception.
Human‑Centric Worries from Sen. Erin Maye Quade
Sen. Erin Maye Quade (DFL‑Apple Valley), who has helped shape many of Minnesota’s AI statutes, argued that while using AI for speech writing may not raise legal red flags, it is troubling from a “human perspective.” “Minnesotans don’t want this in their elections,” she said, noting that voters generally feel unsettled when they detect AI‑generated content in campaign materials. She added that such discomfort can discourage support, making the use of AI for lazy speechwriting counterproductive from a campaign’s own standpoint.
Public Ability to Spot AI‑Generated Content
Maye Quade pointed to research indicating that humans are becoming better at recognizing AI‑produced images, audio, and text. Still, she warned that “you don’t want someone to look at something of yours and be unsettled by it.” If voters perceive a candidate’s messaging as artificially manufactured, it undermines authenticity and can diminish enthusiasm at the ballot box.
Campaigns Remain Tight‑Lipped About AI Practices
When approached by Forum News Service, several high‑profile campaigns—including those of U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, former TV host Michele Tafoya, gubernatorial hopeful Kendall Qualls, and House Speaker Lisa Demuth—did not disclose whether they use AI in their materials, how they employ it, or whether they have internal guidelines. The lack of transparency makes it difficult to gauge the prevalence of AI across the political spectrum in Minnesota.
Klobuchar Campaign’s Stance on Deceptive AI
A spokesperson for Senator Amy Klobuchar’s gubernatorial campaign emphasized her longstanding opposition to misleading AI. “She has long warned about the deceptive use of AI‑generated images, audio, and video in our elections, in scams, and in nonconsensual sexual images,” the statement read. The spokesperson noted that Klobuchar helped pass the bipartisan TAKE IT DOWN Act, which criminalizes non‑consensual intimate images, and leads legislation to ban deceptive AI content in political ads. “Her campaign follows the same standards her bipartisan bills would make law,” the spokesperson added, signalling a commitment to clean, transparent messaging.
Flanagan Campaign Calls for a Basic Principle Against AI Manipulation
Lexi Byler, a spokesperson for Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan’s campaign, condemned the use of deceptive AI in political contests. “We’ve already seen that firsthand in Minnesota when a super PAC supporting Congresswoman Angie Craig aired an attack ad with an AI‑generated deepfake of Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan,” Byler said. She urged that “campaigns and super PACs should be able to agree on one basic principle: don’t use AI to manipulate voters or fabricate images, audio, or video of your opponents.” The statement reflects a growing demand among candidates for clear ethical boundaries around AI usage.
The Future: AI Becoming an Inseparable Part of Campaign Tools
Looking ahead, Dr. Rege warned that the distinction between optional AI tools and unavoidable necessities is fading. “That is because AI is no longer a separate tool that you just choose to switch on. It is being built directly into the apps campaigns already rely on,” he explained. As voter‑targeting platforms, fundraising software, and design suites integrate AI functionalities, campaigns may find it increasingly difficult to avoid using the technology—whether intentionally or not—raising fresh questions about oversight, disclosure, and the preservation of democratic integrity in an AI‑augmented electoral landscape.
Artificial intelligence raises new questions for Minnesota campaigns