AI Ads Surge in 2026 Midterms as Disclosure Rules Fall Short

The video initially looks like a standard campaign spot: Zohran Mamdani and Kathy Hochul introduce themselves as they walk through a sunlit park.

As the 43-second clip unfolds, however, the staged conversation takes a decidedly darker turn. Mamdani, New York City’s mayor, and Hochul, the state’s governor, are presented in an unflattering way. A narrator even calls Hochul “the political delusion pill for New Yorkers who would rather think about what four more years could actually cost them.”

The spot is not from either Democrat. It was produced for Bruce Blakeman, the Trump-backed Republican challenging Hochul in the New York governor’s race. The depictions of Mamdani and Hochul were created with artificial intelligence. Although the words “paid for by Blakeman for New York” appear in small type throughout the ad, the video does not disclose its AI origins—despite a New York law requiring political communications to provide that information.

In August, the New York State Democratic Party asked the state Board of Elections to investigate Blakeman’s AI-generated advertising, arguing that the campaign had violated the new disclosure requirement. Blakeman’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

AI-powered attack ads have become an increasingly familiar feature of the 2026 midterm campaign, ranging from clearly exaggerated satire to videos designed to look authentic. States have adopted a patchwork of rules governing AI disclosures, yet research suggests campaigns are not consistently following them. Experts say the effect of AI political advertising on voters remains uncertain, but stronger and more consistent oversight is becoming increasingly urgent.

Scott Babwah Brennen, director of New York University’s Center on Technology Policy and a policy research affiliate at its Center for Social Media, AI, and Politics, said narrowly focused labels can be useful when content is materially deceptive. But he cautioned that misinformation cannot be solved through isolated disclaimers alone, because it is rooted in the broader media ecosystem.

By the numbers

The Wesleyan Media Project, which monitors and evaluates election advertising, has counted at least 164 political ads that were generated or modified with AI during the current campaign cycle. Its researchers noted that the true number is probably higher because identifying AI use is not always possible. Nearly seven in 10 of the ads—69%—did not say that AI tools had been involved.

Travis Ridout, the project’s co-director, compared the database with information from the National Conference of State Legislatures to examine compliance in states with AI disclosure laws. Among ads aired in states without such requirements, 32% still included a disclaimer. In states with disclosure rules, the figure was lower: just 29% identified their AI use.

Ridout said the numbers require some context. Not every ad in the database falls under a state’s rules, since laws may address only certain forms of AI use. Tennessee’s statute, for instance, focuses specifically on deepfakes that impersonate candidates. Laws may also have taken effect after an ad was broadcast. Even so, Ridout said it was surprising to see campaigns voluntarily disclose AI use when no law required them to do so.

“I think it’s a time when campaigns are really trying to figure out what are the norms surrounding this, what are the laws surrounding this?” he said. “It may depend on the campaign consultant or the firm that’s producing the ads. It’s a time of uncertainty and so it’s all shaking out right now.”

Deception vs. satire

Not every AI-enhanced campaign video is meant to fool viewers. Some are deliberately comedic or satirical, while others are so over-the-top that their artificial nature is part of the joke.

MUST READ: Prince Harry Reportedly Courts Princess Diana’s Brother Earl Spencer for Rumored Documentary

Michigan Republican Mike Rogers, locked in a competitive Senate contest against Democrat Abdul El-Sayed, shared an AI-generated video on X in June portraying himself as a superhero. The clip showed him performing impossible feats, including stopping a speeding car with one hand. “Haters will say it’s AI,” Rogers’ post said, apparently acknowledging the joke.

In North Carolina, state Sen. Michael Lee’s Republican campaign released an August ad accusing Democrat Jessica Bichler of being excessively liberal. Bichler, who works as a yoga instructor, is shown twisting her body into physically impossible poses. The ad openly includes the disclaimer: “You guessed it! AI was definitely used to generate these silly video clips.”

Republican campaigns and conservative groups accounted for 80% of the 164 AI-related ads tracked by the Wesleyan Media Project. Sponsors aligned with Democrats produced 11%, while the remaining 9% came from independent candidates, issue campaigns and other groups.

What’s next?

Basil Smikle, a Democratic strategist and policy adviser, said missing AI disclosures may reflect a deliberate decision, but they could also stem from simple oversight or confusion about the rules. Because AI makes it faster and cheaper to produce campaign videos, the technology offers campaigns greater efficiency. At the same time, it can make political messaging feel less authentic, leave voters feeling deceived and accelerate the spread of false information.

“In the wrong hands, it could be a really dangerous trend, but if done well it can help do things that campaigns need to do and should do, which is tell good stories,” Smikle said.

He added that identifying AI-generated content is essential for accountability, particularly as voters and policymakers continue to grapple with a technology that remains poorly understood. Clear labels, he said, give the public important context when judging campaign messages and making electoral decisions.

While they may promote transparency, an October 2024 report co-authored by Babwah Brennen found that labels can end up hurting a candidate. Respondents in an online experiment rated candidates as less trustworthy and less appealing when their ads contained AI disclaimers, and the ads themselves as less accurate. Labels also created a “backfire effect” in which respondents expressed lower opinions of creators of attack ads than of the candidates being attacked. As many as 37% of respondents didn’t even remember seeing an AI label.

Babwah Brennen advocates for more of an overarching approach to addressing the arrival of AI campaign ads. For example, improving campaign transparency in general and investing in local journalism. He also noted that because laws regulating such AI use are so new, it’s not yet clear how enforcement works and what falls within their purview.

Standardizing these regulations could help, Ridout said.

“If we could get something at the federal level I think that would make it clearer for campaigns what we can, what we can’t do,” he said. “Congress hasn’t done anything yet, nor have the regulatory agencies. And so into that vacuum many of the states have entered.”