Key Takeaways
- FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez opposes allowing AI‑generated robocalls in the upcoming midterm elections.
- Club for Growth petition seeks permission for political groups to make unsolicited AI robocalls, limited to three calls per voter in 30 days with an opt‑out.
- The FCC currently bans AI‑generated voices in robocalls, citing the risk of impersonation and scams.
- An AI‑voiced Biden robocall in New Hampshire highlighted the potential for voter suppression and misinformation.
- Several states have enacted disclosure laws for AI‑generated campaign calls, while polls show voters doubt federal leadership’s handling of AI risks.
- The White House’s voluntary AI accord is viewed skeptically as insufficient to curb misuse.
Background on the Petition and FCC Process
On Wednesday, the commissioner pushed back against a petition from Club for Growth, a national conservative fiscal policy organisation, to allow AI-generated robocalls. The petition, filed on August 31, asked the Federal Communications Commission to permit political groups to place automated calls to individuals without obtaining prior consent. It proposed safeguards: limiting any single recipient to no more than three calls within a 30‑day window and providing an easy opt‑out mechanism. The FCC opened a public comment period on September 4, with comments due by Monday and agency responses expected by October 19. As of now, the commission has not rendered a decision on whether to approve the request.
Commissioner Gomez’s Opposition and Concerns
Commissioner Anna Gomez, the Democratic voice on the five‑member FCC, warned that granting the petition would unleash a flood of unsolicited AI‑driven calls just weeks before the midterm elections. Speaking to Reuters, she said, “[If] the FCC allows a dark money group to flood Americans’ phones with AI-generated robocalls they never agreed to receive, it would bring chaos so close to Election Day.” She also told the Associated Press that stripping the FCC’s consent requirement could spur a surge in unwanted robocalls and amplify political misinformation. Gomez’s stance reflects a broader worry that AI‑synthesised voices could be weaponised to deceive voters and undermine trust in the electoral process.
Details of the Club for Growth Request
The Club for Growth’s filing argued that AI‑generated robocalls could be a cost‑effective tool for grassroots outreach, provided the commission imposed strict limits. According to the petition, each voter would receive at most three calls over a month, and every call would include a clear opt‑out instruction. The group contended that these constraints would mitigate abuse while still enabling political organizations to reach large audiences quickly. Critics, however, note that even a modest volume of AI‑voiced calls could be exploited for targeted disinformation, especially when the synthetic voice closely mimics a real person.
Current FCC Rules on Robocalls and AI Voice Ban
Under existing FCC regulations, robocalls to mobile phones and pagers are prohibited unless the recipient has given prior express consent; landline calls are permitted without consent. In February 2024, the agency took a stronger stance on AI, declaring that “this action now makes the act of using AI to generate the voice in these robocalls itself illegal.” The ban was motivated by a surge in scams that employed synthetic voices to impersonate trusted figures, thereby increasing the likelihood of fraud. Gomez’s opposition aligns with this precedent, arguing that carving out an exception for political speech would erode the protective barrier the FCC has built.
Real‑World Example: AI Biden Robocall in New Hampshire
The dangers of AI‑generated political calls became tangible ahead of the 2024 New Hampshire primary, when voters received a robocall featuring an AI‑produced imitation of President Joe Biden’s voice urging them not to vote. The FCC identified political consultant Steve Kramer, who was working for long‑shot primary challenger Dean Phillips, as the source of the call and proposed a potential $6 million fine. Although Kramer was later acquitted of voter‑suppression charges, the incident underscored how realistic synthetic voices can be used to suppress turnout and spread false narratives. Gomez cited this case as a concrete illustration of why the commission should retain its prohibition.
State‑Level Legislative Responses
In reaction to growing unease, several states have enacted statutes demanding transparency for AI‑generated campaign communications. Louisiana, Tennessee and Vermont passed laws this year requiring any AI‑produced robocall to disclose its synthetic nature to the recipient. More broadly, twenty‑five states have adopted legislation since 2019 that addresses the use of AI‑generated materials in elections, ranging from disclosure mandates to outright bans on deceptive deepfakes. These state measures illustrate a patchwork approach while federal policymakers deliberate the Club for Growth petition.
Broader Voter Perceptions of AI Risk and Federal Action
National polling underscores voter apprehension about AI’s role in politics. A Reuters/Ipsos survey found that 57 percent of registered voters believe the administration of former President Donald Trump has not taken AI risks seriously enough, while 54 percent say the same about congressional leadership. The same poll indicates a widespread desire for stronger safeguards against AI‑driven misinformation, especially as the nation approaches pivotal midterm contests. This public sentiment bolsters Gomez’s argument that the FCC should remain vigilant rather than relax its consent requirements.
Critique of the White House Voluntary AI Accord
In an attempt to curb the most advanced AI systems, the White House convened leaders from Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta and Google to sign a voluntary pact pledging additional safety safeguards. However, experts view the accord as insufficient. Tom Wheeler, a visiting fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution’s Center for Technology Innovation, wrote, “The White House Accord on Super Intelligence is ‘morally binding’ only, allowing AI companies to design their own controls, select their own evaluators, and determine whether their own procedures are being followed.” He added, “History suggests voluntary commitments from these companies are unreliable, as Facebook, Google, and Twitter have all walked back or violated previous self‑imposed standards.” Such skepticism reinforces the call for enforceable FCC rules rather than reliance on industry self‑regulation.
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/10/7/democratic-fcc-member-warns-of-ai-robocall-misinformation-risks-in-us