Chuck Schumer urges FCC to block AI robocalls before elections

Chuck Schumer is asking the Federal Communications Commission to reject a petition from the conservative group Club for Growth. The petition seeks permission for AI-generated robocalls before the November midterm elections. Schumer says the change could let campaigns use an opponent’s voice without permission. That matters because voters may hear a message that sounds authentic but is not.

The concern is based on a real example. Before the 2024 New Hampshire primary, voters received a call using an AI-generated version of Joe Biden’s voice. The message told them not to vote. The FCC said a political consultant working with challenger Dean Phillips was responsible.

The petition was filed on August 31, and public comments opened September 4. The comment period ends Monday. FCC spokespersons said the agency has no current plans to issue an order, but states including Louisiana, Tennessee, and Vermont now require disclosure of AI-generated campaign calls.

An AI-generated robocall is an automated telephone call whose spoken message is produced or altered using artificial intelligence. It can sound like a real person, including a politician or public figure. The risk is that listeners may trust a familiar voice without realizing the words were never spoken by that person.

In general, voice-cloning systems analyze recordings of someone’s speech, including pronunciation, rhythm, tone, and vocal texture. They then generate audio for new words. A campaign could use that system to make an opponent appear to deliver a message. The article warns that such messages could be disingenuous or blatant lies.

The article gives a specific example from New Hampshire. Before the 2024 primary, voters heard an AI-generated version of Joe Biden telling them not to vote. Louisiana, Tennessee, and Vermont have since required disclosures for AI-generated campaign calls, while federal officials consider the petition’s implications.

The Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, is the federal agency involved in setting and enforcing rules for communications systems. In this dispute, it has authority because the proposed change concerns automated calls reaching Americans’ telephones. The agency is collecting public comments on whether to approve Club for Growth’s petition.

The article says FCC rules prohibit robocalls to cellphones without prior consent. That rule covers automated political calls as well as other calls reaching wireless phones. However, the same restrictions do not apply to landlines. This difference gives the FCC a central role in deciding how political calls may reach voters.

The FCC has not approved the petition. Democratic commissioner Anna Gomez urged colleagues not to consider it, while Schumer asked the agency to reject it. An FCC spokesperson said seeking comments is normal procedure and that there are currently zero plans to issue an order on this petition or related petitions.

Before the 2024 New Hampshire primary, voters received a robocall using an AI-generated version of Joe Biden’s voice. Biden was then the Democratic incumbent. The message told people not to vote, making the call a direct example of how synthetic audio could interfere with an election.

The key mechanism was voice imitation. Artificial intelligence generated speech that sounded like Biden, even though the call was not a genuine message from him. A familiar voice can make a political instruction seem credible. The incident provides precedent for Schumer’s concern that campaigns could use opponents’ voices for deceptive messages.

The FCC said a political consultant working with longshot primary challenger Dean Phillips was responsible. The article does not describe the number of calls, how many voters acted on the message, or any punishment. It presents the incident as a warning while federal officials consider whether AI political robocalls should face different treatment.

If political groups used AI voices to spread false messages, voters could receive convincing misinformation that appears to come from a trusted candidate. They might believe an invented claim, misunderstand a campaign’s position, or avoid voting altogether. Schumer says campaigns could use opponents’ voices for messages that are disingenuous or blatant lies.

The New Hampshire example shows the mechanism clearly. Voters heard an AI-generated version of Joe Biden telling them not to vote before the 2024 primary. A synthetic voice can make a false instruction seem authentic, especially when it imitates a nationally known politician. Similar calls could create confusion close to Election Day.

The article does not measure the actual effect of that call on turnout. It does show growing concern among lawmakers and regulators. Louisiana, Tennessee, and Vermont require disclosures for AI-generated campaign calls. The FCC is reviewing the petition, while Schumer and Commissioner Gomez want it blocked.

The article names three states that have passed laws requiring disclosures for AI-generated campaign phone calls. They are Louisiana, Tennessee, and Vermont. These laws do not necessarily ban such calls. Instead, they require campaigns to tell recipients when artificial intelligence generated the call.

Disclosure rules address the central deception risk. A voter who knows a voice was created by AI can judge the message differently from a call presented as an authentic statement by a candidate. The article connects these state laws to wider concerns about campaigns imitating opponents and spreading false information.

At the federal level, the FCC is considering a petition from Club for Growth that would allow AI-generated robocalls. Chuck Schumer and Commissioner Anna Gomez oppose allowing them without stronger safeguards. Existing FCC rules prohibit robocalls to cellphones without prior consent, but those restrictions do not cover landlines.

The First Amendment protects political speech because people must be able to discuss public issues, criticize leaders, support candidates, and persuade voters. Political expression receives especially strong protection from government censorship. That protection explains Club for Growth’s argument that political calls should receive the same treatment as other protected communications.

Protection does not mean every method of communication is unrestricted. The government can regulate practical features of calls, such as using automated systems to contact cellphones without consent. The article says FCC rules prohibit such robocalls to cellphones, while the restrictions do not apply to landlines. Disclosure requirements can also identify AI-generated speech without banning political viewpoints.

Club for Growth says political speech should be treated like wireless calls about package deliveries, bank accounts, and doctor’s appointments. Schumer and Gomez focus on deception and election risks. The FCC is gathering comments, but its spokesperson says there are no plans to issue an order currently.