Federal Judge Blocks Montana AI Campaign Ad Law on First Amendment Grounds

A federal court has halted Montana's attempt to regulate artificial intelligence in political advertising, finding that state restrictions on AI-generated campaign content conflict with constitutional free speech protections.

U.S. District Judge Susan Watters issued an order late Wednesday blocking Montana's Commissioner of Political Practices and attorney general from enforcing the state's AI campaign law against former Republican state legislator Dan Bartel and the Accountability in State Government PAC. The ruling allows the group to proceed with planned general election advertising in legislative races.

The Law and the Challenge

Montana's statute prohibits paying for or distributing campaign ads using deepfake images or recordings of candidates or political parties within 60 days of voting, unless the content includes clear disclosure that it has been significantly edited by AI. The law targets content creators know or should have known falsely represents reality.

Bartel and ASG PAC argued their AI-generated political mailers don't constitute deepfakes. Their attorney, Matt Monforton, distinguished their satirical images from actual deepfakes like a 2024 robocall that convincingly mimicked then-President Joe Biden's voice to discourage primary voting in Massachusetts.

The court file includes unreleased mailers depicting Democratic legislator Mary Ann Dunwell of Helena as a country-western pickpocket removing a wallet from a cowboy's pants.

Enforcement Concerns Drove the Ruling

Judge Watters found that Bartel and ASG faced credible enforcement threats based on multiple private complaints filed during primary elections and a warning letter from Commissioner Chris Gallus. The judge noted the state's failure to disavow enforcement action.

Controversy emerged during spring primaries when fellow Republicans in competitive races were targeted with AI-generated images portraying them as supporters of diversity, equity and inclusion policies. One candidate, Jennifer Carlson of Manhattan, filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Political Practices. Gallus testified in court filings that those mailers constituted satire, a valid form of political critique exempt from the AI law.

Monforton argued the disclosure requirement itself violates free speech by prejudicing the message. "The whole point of the disclaimer requirement is to make sure that the juice isn't worth the squeeze for a candidate who wants to use AI," he told Montana Free Press.

Why it matters

This ruling represents one of the first federal court decisions striking down state-level AI political advertising restrictions on constitutional grounds. As states nationwide grapple with regulating synthetic media in elections, the Montana decision suggests disclosure requirements and content restrictions may face significant First Amendment hurdles. The outcome could influence how other jurisdictions approach AI governance in political campaigns, potentially forcing lawmakers to craft narrower regulations that target demonstrable voter deception rather than satirical or opinion-based content.

This story was first reported by Tom Lutey for Montana Free Press.