Which Federal Campaign Advertising Rules Are Verified?

Last verified: September 1, 2026 (Q3 2026). Scope: Federal requirements supported by the cited sources. This article is not legal advice and does not verify state-law obligations.

Primary rule text: 11 CFR 110.11, Communications; advertising; disclaimers. The current eCFR supplies the verified baseline for the campaign advertising rules for federal candidates addressed below.[1]

AI rule status: The FEC decided on September 19, 2024 not to initiate the requested AI-ad rulemaking and instead approved an interpretive rule addressing existing fraudulent-misrepresentation prohibitions. It did not create a new AI disclaimer duty.[2] The cited FCC material documents an AI-disclosure proposal in MB Docket 24-211, released as an NPRM on July 25, 2024; the available sources do not establish a final FCC obligation.[3]

Verified requirements in 11 CFR 110.11

The eCFR heading identifies 52 U.S.C. § 30120 as the associated statutory authority, but the cited sources do not include that statute’s text. Its subsection structure therefore remains unverified here. The table relies on the regulation’s own paragraph designations rather than attributing those requirements to unverified statutory subsections.

What the rule requires an ad reviewer to see and hear

Unauthorized communications: identification has three components

For a communication governed by 11 CFR 110.11(a)(3), naming the organization that paid for the ad is only the first check. The disclaimer must give the payor’s full name, include at least one of the permitted contact methods—a permanent street address, telephone number, or website—and state that no candidate authorized the communication.[1]

That produces a straightforward approval review. Confirm that the named entity is the payor, that the name is complete rather than an unexplained abbreviation, that one permitted contact detail is present, and that the nonauthorization language is included. A disclaimer that satisfies only one or two of those checks does not reproduce the full requirement described in the cited paragraph.

This conclusion should not be extended into a broader claim about which communications trigger the rule. The cited sources do not include the relevant passage from 11 CFR 100.26, and 11 CFR 100.29 is only identified rather than reproduced. Whether a particular placement falls within a regulatory trigger may require additional primary-text review.

Clear and conspicuous is a production specification

A disclaimer can contain the right words and still fail the presentation requirement. Under 11 CFR 110.11(c)(1)–(2), the review must reach the rendered communication—not merely the script, insertion order, or copy deck. The cited text addresses comparative print size, contrast, and the length of time a video disclaimer remains visible.[1]

• Text size: compare the disclaimer with the actual body of the communication. The verified standard is not satisfied merely because the disclaimer remains technically legible when enlarged.
• Contrast: inspect the final colors, background image, gradients, animation, and overlays. Adequacy depends on the finished presentation rather than the text layer in isolation.
• Video duration: verify the exported cut. The disclaimer must remain visible for at least four seconds, so time assigned in an editing timeline should be checked against the delivered file.

These details matter when an ad is resized or reformatted. A disclaimer approved on a large print layout may become comparatively smaller in a derivative asset. A high-contrast bar may be obscured by captions or platform controls. A four-second segment may be shortened when a vendor creates a cutdown. Approval of the source design does not establish that every rendered version preserves the required presentation.

Broadcast and television statements require a separate review

For covered broadcast, cable, and satellite advertising, 11 CFR 110.11(c)(4) adds an audio statement that “XXX is responsible for the content of this advertising.” Covered television advertising also requires a candidate-approval statement.[1] Those elements should be checked independently from the general payor-identification and visual-presentation requirements.

The cited material supports the existence of these broadcast and television requirements, but it does not support improvising exact language beyond the quoted responsibility statement or extending the television requirement to formats not covered by the cited text. The operative questions remain who sponsored and authorized the communication, which medium will carry it, and what the final audience will hear and see.

The exemptions are format-specific

Section 110.11(f) identifies formats for which a disclaimer is impracticable, including bumper stickers, pins, buttons, pens, skywriting, water towers, wearing apparel, and similar small items.[1] This is a limited exemption inquiry. The fact that a communication is inconvenient, brief, digitally constrained, or expensive to revise does not place it on the cited list.

In particular, the cited sources do not establish an internet-only carve-out. An online communication should not be marked exempt solely because it appears on the internet. Any more specific conclusion would require the applicable current regulatory text and trigger provisions.

AI-related materials do not add a verified disclaimer duty

The FEC’s September 19, 2024 action is relevant, but its procedural posture controls what can be said about it. The Commission declined to initiate the requested rulemaking on artificial intelligence in campaign ads and approved an interpretive rule explaining that existing statutory fraudulent-misrepresentation prohibitions can apply regardless of whether AI was used.[2]

That agency action does not establish a new label such as “AI-generated,” prescribe a synthetic-media icon, or change the duration or placement requirements in 11 CFR 110.11. It connects AI-assisted conduct to an existing prohibition rather than creating an additional campaign-ad disclaimer.

The cited sources also omit the interpretive rule’s Federal Register citation and publication date. No operative date for that interpretive rule should be inserted into an approval memorandum from these materials alone. The date verified here is the Commission’s September 19, 2024 decision date.[2]

The FCC material is further removed from a binding obligation. The cited secondary source reports that the FCC released an NPRM identified as FCC-24-74A1 in MB Docket 24-211 on July 25, 2024, proposing AI-disclosure requirements for political advertising.[3] An NPRM establishes that an agency sought comment on a proposal; it does not, by itself, impose the proposed disclosure.

No final FCC rule, final-rule publication, effective date, or current codified text appears in the cited sources. The correct Q3 2026 notation is therefore “proposal documented; final obligation unverified,” not “FCC disclosure required.” This is a verification gap rather than proof that the FCC took no later action.

A dated enforcement point, not a current trend

The available FEC enforcement example concerns Republicans for Trauner and the 2006 Wyoming House election. In a 2007 release, the FEC reported a $3,600 conciliation for failing to include adequate disclaimers on public communications.[4] It demonstrates that deficient disclaimers have produced a conciliation and civil penalty.

It does not establish present penalty levels, a typical settlement amount, an enforcement surge, or a recurring 2023–2026 pattern. No disclaimer-specific matter from that later period is documented in the cited sources. A current enforcement assessment would require a defined search and review of the FEC’s enforcement records, including the agency’s Enforcement Query System.[5]

Unverified boundaries

• 52 U.S.C. § 30120: the statutory text and subsection structure were not available for review. Do not attribute the regulatory requirements to particular statutory subsections without checking the U.S. Code.
• Trigger definitions: the relevant passage of 11 CFR 100.26 is absent, while 11 CFR 100.29 was only identified. Claims about the full universe of covered communications require further primary-text review.
• Internet-only communications: no general exemption is verified. Do not treat internet distribution, standing alone, as removing a communication from the disclaimer rules.
• Recent enforcement: no 2023–2026 disclaimer matter or documented disclaimer-specific query is included. Current penalty ranges, enforcement frequency, and trend claims are unsupported.
• FEC AI interpretive rule: the Commission action is documented, but the Federal Register citation, publication date, and resulting operative-date analysis are not.
• FCC AI disclosure: an NPRM is documented, but no final rule or effective federal obligation is verified.
• State AI-disclosure laws: no applicable state statute or regulation was available for review. This federal baseline should not be used to clear state-law issues.

On the available primary materials, 11 CFR 110.11 supplies the verified federal baseline: identify the payor and nonauthorization where required, make disclaimers clear and conspicuous, include the applicable broadcast and television statements, and apply the listed exemptions narrowly. Claims about recent enforcement patterns or additional AI-disclosure duties require further primary-source verification before they are treated as operative obligations.

References

1. 11 CFR 110.11 — Communications; advertising; disclaimers (52 U.S.C. 30120) — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations.
2. Commission approves Notification of Disposition, Interpretive Rule on artificial intelligence in campaign ads — Federal Election Commission, September 19, 2024.
3. FCC Releases NPRM on AI Disclosure Requirements for Political Ads — Wiley.
4. Completed FEC Enforcement Actions Include Total of $100,100 in Civil Penalties — Federal Election Commission, 2007.
5. FEC Enforcement Query System — Federal Election Commission.