NextFin News - Political campaign ads are entering a new phase in which artificial intelligence can both widen access and widen the scope for deception. The same tools that help a small campaign produce polished video, synthetic voice work and tailored graphics can also fabricate fake endorsements, impersonate institutions and push lies into the feed at almost no cost. That tension is no longer theoretical. In Queens, a former city council candidate was arrested on forgery charges after prosecutors said he used AI-generated fake news reports and endorsements, while regulators in New York have already moved to force disclosure when an advertisement uses a synthetic performer.
The practical question is not whether AI will change political advertising. It already has. The real question is whether the technology will mostly level the playing field for underfunded candidates or mostly reward the people best able to weaponize cheap persuasion. For now, the answer is both. AI can lower the production barrier for a local campaign that cannot afford a full studio. It can also lower the barrier for a bad actor who wants to manufacture the appearance of support, spread confusion and exploit the short attention span of voters scrolling on a phone.
Jonathan Rinaldi, a former Queens candidate, was arrested on June 24 on misdemeanor forgery charges after prosecutors said he used AI tools to create phony local-news articles and endorsements, including material that falsely suggested his opponent had dropped out of the race. The allegations matter because they show that the political use of generative AI has already moved beyond satire and into enforcement. The case may not be the first of its kind, but it appears to be among the first in which a candidate could face criminal penalties over AI-assisted political messaging.
At the same time, the broader market for campaign content is changing in a less dramatic but more consequential way. AI-generated ads are becoming a routine part of political communication. Some are clearly comedic or promotional. Others are designed to blur the line between parody and fabrication. That ambiguity is the core policy problem, because political speech enjoys broad protection while fraudulent impersonation does not. AI widens the gray zone by making both the harmless and the harmful versions cheaper, faster and more scalable.
That is why the policy response is centering on disclosure rather than outright bans. New York has adopted a law requiring ads that feature AI-generated people in place of actors to identify a synthetic performer, with penalties of $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for repeat violations. The idea is simple: if synthetic material cannot be stopped, it should at least be labeled. But disclosure only works if it is visible, enforced and meaningful. In politics, the actors most eager to deceive are often the least likely to highlight their deception.
The result is a campaign-ad environment where AI can genuinely help smaller operations compete while also helping the most cynical operators create confusion at scale. A modest campaign can now produce better-looking ads, more variations and more localized messages with less money and fewer staff. That is a real equalizing effect. But the same tools also let a bad actor impersonate a school, a police precinct or a trusted news format and make the falsehood look official. AI does not pick a side. It just reduces the cost of both persuasion and fraud.
AI Is Lowering The Cost Of Persuasion
The strongest case for AI in political ads is that it gives small campaigns access to production quality that once belonged mainly to wealthy candidates and national committees. A candidate with limited funds can now draft copy, generate video concepts, make graphics and adapt a message for different platforms without hiring an expensive creative shop. That matters because political communication is often a budget race as much as an ideas race. The side with more money usually gets more reach, more repetition and more polish.
AI weakens that barrier. It allows local candidates and outsider campaigns to look more professional, faster. It can help campaigns respond to attacks within hours instead of days. It can turn a speech into clips, a clip into a graphic and a graphic into multiple versions for different audiences. For campaigns that live and die on attention, that is a meaningful advantage.
That is the equalizing argument in its most persuasive form. The technology can make it less expensive to sound competent and less time-consuming to stay visible. It can reduce dependence on a big donor base and help campaigns with fewer resources compete in the visual culture of modern politics. In that sense, AI is not merely a gimmick. It is an infrastructure shift.
But the equalization is incomplete. Lowering the cost of making an ad does not lower the cost of getting trusted. Nor does it prevent a more sophisticated campaign from using the same tools at larger scale. Once production becomes cheap, distribution and credibility become the scarcest assets. The campaigns that already know how to dominate attention still have the advantage.
That is why the technology’s promise is so difficult to separate from its abuse. A sincere campaign can use AI to explain a policy proposal clearly, but the same workflow can just as easily produce a fake image of an opponent saying something they never said. The software is neutral. The incentive structure is not.
“Campaigns are full of lies, OK,” Jonathan Rinaldi said. “What I’m saying is that I’m not doing anything different than anybody else.”
His defense captures the temptation AI creates for campaigns that already see exaggeration as normal. If political messaging is treated as a competition in provocation, then AI becomes a natural accelerant. It does not invent dishonesty. It industrializes it.
Deception Scales Faster Than Truth
The reason AI worries election officials is not that it creates a brand-new category of fraud. It is that it makes familiar forms of fraud cheaper, quicker and more plausible. A fake endorsement used to require more manual work and a higher chance of looking clumsy. A synthetic video or voice clip can now be generated with enough polish to slow down casual skepticism, especially when it appears inside a social feed where users are already primed to react emotionally.
That is a crucial point for political advertising. The content does not need to fool everyone. It only needs to travel fast enough to shape the first impression. In a close race, a few hours of confusion can matter. By the time a campaign proves that a clip is fake, the image may already have been clipped, reposted and folded into a larger story.
The Rinaldi case shows how that can work in practice. Prosecutors said he used AI-generated stories and endorsements to suggest that his opponent had abandoned the race. The alleged material was not just insulting or partisan. It was allegedly designed to imitate the authority of local news and civic institutions. That is the heart of the problem. AI does not merely create content. It can counterfeit context.
Once that happens, the line between political theater and fraud gets harder to enforce. Campaigns have always used exaggeration, selective framing and opposition research. AI adds a new layer because it can produce images, voices and fake documentation that look like external evidence rather than campaign rhetoric. That gives the deception extra force. It looks like proof.
It also creates a larger structural problem: the people most likely to spread the strongest synthetic attacks are often not the official campaign itself but outside groups or unaffiliated actors. That arrangement offers plausible deniability to candidates and lets the most inflammatory material circulate with less accountability. AI makes that model easier to scale because the production cost is now low enough for small shops and informal networks to participate.
The effect is not simply more lies. It is more plausible lies. And in politics, plausibility matters more than perfection.
“Most of these ads aren’t trying to convince people,” Bruce Schneier said. “They’re about social signaling. What’s important is: my team gets to dunk on your team.”
That is the clearest explanation for why AI ads spread so quickly even when everyone in the room knows the content is exaggerated. The goal is often tribal reinforcement, not persuasion. If the ad makes supporters laugh, enrages opponents and dominates the feed, it has already accomplished much of its purpose.
That dynamic makes deception especially hard to police. A false ad can be defended as satire, framed as commentary or passed off as a joke after it circulates. AI gives that ambiguity more texture. It can make a lie look funny, and a joke look official.
Disclosure Rules Help, But They Cannot Fix The Feed
Regulators are trying to build guardrails, but the current approach is mostly about disclosure, not prohibition. New York’s synthetic-performer law is the clearest example. It requires ads that use AI-generated people in place of actors to identify the synthetic nature of the performance, and it sets penalties of $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for later ones. That is a real step, because it tells campaigns that AI is not a legal free-for-all.
The limits are obvious, though. Disclosure works best when everyone follows the rule and when voters actually see the disclaimer before the content is shared. In the real world, neither condition is guaranteed. A deceptive ad can spread much faster than a complaint can be filed. Once the content has moved through a platform, a label that appears later may be too late to undo the impression.
That is why transparency alone is not enough. It can reduce confusion at the margin. It can create evidence for enforcement. It can help honest campaigns separate themselves from bad actors. But it cannot stop virality. And in politics, virality is often the whole game.
The deeper challenge is that the rules are fragmented. States are writing different standards, platforms are applying different policies and campaigns are adapting in real time. That patchwork gives opportunists room to exploit weak spots. If one jurisdiction is stricter than another, the content often shifts where the enforcement is softer. That means the regulatory burden falls hardest on the campaigns trying to comply and lightest on the campaigns willing to test the boundaries.
There is also a practical ambiguity in what counts as a synthetic performer, a dramatization or a manipulated image. The wording matters because political campaigns want flexibility for parody and reenactment while regulators want clear labels for anything that could mislead. The result is a constant fight over definitions. That fight will determine whether disclosure is a meaningful constraint or just another line in small print.
For now, the best case for regulation is that it changes behavior before the worst abuses become normalized. The worst case is that it becomes a ritualized compliance exercise while the underlying deception continues to scale. The difference will depend on enforcement, platform cooperation and whether voters learn to pay attention to the disclosure itself.
Even a strong rule has a timing problem. If an ad has already been copied into a meme, clipped into a different post or shared in a private group, the original label may be irrelevant. The feed moves first. Regulation follows.
The Real Risk Is That Voters Stop Believing Anything
The deepest danger from AI in campaign ads is not just that voters will believe fake material. It is that they may begin to distrust real material as well. That is the corrosive outcome election officials fear most. If people come to assume that any image, video or endorsement can be synthetic, then honest campaigns lose some of their ability to prove their case.
This is the paradox of the technology. AI can make campaigning more accessible, especially for smaller operations. But if it also floods the environment with synthetic clutter, it can weaken the informational value of all campaign content. The weak side gets a tool. The whole system gets noisier.
That is why the question posed by AI campaign ads is not whether they are good or bad in the abstract. It is which use case ends up dominating the ecosystem. The positive version is real: a local campaign can create better ads with fewer resources and compete more effectively. The negative version is also real: a bad-faith operator can fabricate authority and move faster than the truth can catch up.
At the moment, the negative use case has the structural advantage. It is cheaper to deceive than to verify. It is easier to produce a fake than to disprove it. And it is easier to spread content that makes people angry than content that asks them to read carefully.
That does not mean the technology is doomed to be a propaganda machine. It means the system around it is still too weak to force the constructive uses to outrun the destructive ones. Campaigns, regulators, platforms and voters all have a role in raising the cost of deception. But none of them has found a complete answer yet.
The next test will come in races close enough for a synthetic ad to matter and visible enough for a falsehood to travel quickly. If disclosure rules become routine and enforcement becomes credible, AI could genuinely open campaign production to smaller players without destroying trust. If not, it will increasingly become the cheapest tool available for those who want to blur the truth.
AI can level the cost of making political messages. It has not yet leveled the cost of lying about them. That imbalance is the real story.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
