Condemning Deepfakes in Political Ads

When Minnesota Senator Tina Smith announced she wasn’t seeking re-election, several people stepped forward to vie for her seat. One of them is current Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan. Another is Representative Angie Craig, from Minnesota’s 2nd district (where I happen to live).

This past week, a super PAC supporting Angie Craig named North Star Dawn aired an ad which appeared to use a deepfake of Peggy Flanagan. Craig, through a spokesman, said, “she does not support the use of AI in political ads”.

I’ve written about Craig before, particularly of her support for last year’s TAKE IT DOWN Act. Her tepid response, all things considered, was troubling enough that I felt compelled to write and send her the following letter, below.


Dear Representative Craig,

I am writing as one of your current constituents and as a Minnesota voter concerned about the standards being set in the race for Senator Tina Smith’s open U.S. Senate seat.

In the past week, a North Star Dawn PAC advertisement targeting Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan emerged that appeared to use an AI-generated or deepfake-like depiction of her. I understand that your campaign does not directly control the actions of an outside PAC. But that does not mean your response is irrelevant. When a PAC supporting your candidacy uses deceptive synthetic media against an opponent, the issue is not only whether your campaign legally coordinated with that PAC. The issue is whether you are willing to clearly reject deceptive synthetic media when it appears to benefit you.

Your response, as reported through a spokesperson, was that “Craig does not support the use of AI in political ads”. That is not enough.

A statement of general discomfort is not the same as a condemnation. It is not the same as calling for the ad to be taken down. It is not the same as asking any PAC supporting your candidacy to refrain from using AI-generated or materially manipulated depictions of your opponents. At a moment when deceptive synthetic media is becoming an obvious threat to public trust, voters deserve more than carefully worded distance.

This is especially troubling given your sponsorship of the TAKE IT DOWN Act. Through that legislation, you have already recognized that AI-generated depictions can cause serious harm when they are created or distributed without consent. I understand that nonconsensual intimate imagery and political advertising are not identical harms. But the underlying principle is directly relevant: synthetic media can be used to exploit, humiliate, deceive, and distort public perception. It is difficult to accept strong opposition to deepfakes in one context while seeing such a limited response when similar technology is used in a political context that may benefit your campaign.

The timing of the ad makes this worse. As I understand it, Minnesota law restricts certain election-related deepfakes within defined pre-election windows, including before nominating conventions and primaries. This ad appears to fall into a gap outside those windows. But legality should not be the only standard. Exploiting a loophole in the law is not the same as acting with integrity. A tactic can be technically permissible and still be corrosive to democratic elections.

I am asking you to do more than state that you do not support AI in political ads. I am asking you to publicly and unequivocally condemn the North Star Dawn ad, call for its immediate removal, and make clear that any outside group supporting your candidacy should not use AI-generated or materially manipulated depictions of your opponents. I also ask that you support closing the legal gap that allows this kind of conduct to occur outside the current statutory windows.

This is not a minor campaign dust-up. It is a test of judgment, consistency, and leadership. As my current congressional representative and as a candidate seeking statewide federal office, I expect clear standards from you on the use of deceptive synthetic media in elections. I also expect those standards to apply even when the deception may be politically convenient.

Respectfully, Matthew Reinbold