The BaseResearcharXiv
Measuring Generative AI Content in Political Campaigns: Evidence of Rising Adoption and Non-Disclosure
University of Washington researchers apply AI detectors to text and images from the campaign websites, X accounts and emails of 12,977 US candidates from 2023 to 2025. They report rising detectable AI content, almost no disclosure, and no clear link between state laws and less AI use.
Why it matters
The same thing, for different readers.
What it means for you
A University of Washington study finds AI-generated material in US campaign websites, X posts and emails is rising and almost never labelled, though detectors are imperfect.
For lawmakers
University of Washington authors find similar AI use in states with AI election laws, except a small federal gap, and say this does not show the laws caused it.
For researchers
Pangram text detection and a GPT-5.4-mini image check give detectable-AI rates, not proof of AI use; the authors report 78.3% agreement when checking the image method against another study's labels.
The question it raises
Disclosure rules assume campaigns will label AI use; the paper cites experimental work finding that disclosure makes candidates look less trustworthy to voters, a possible reason to stay silent.
In their own words
Every quotation was found, word for word, in the text we saved from the source. That shows the words are there; it does not make them true, or prove the speaker meant them as quoted.
From the source’s own text.
“detectable AIGC from campaigns increased significantly across modalities over the observation window, and campaigns that use AIGC frequently do not disclose it.”
“in our review of 505 AI-detected images on X posts, we find no evidence of disclosure across all posts (both by the candidate and by the platform).”
“We caution these are descriptive differences among candidates whose AI use is measurable, and they are not evidence that the laws caused candidates to change their behavior.”
How the finding was reached
In our words, from the source. Weigh the finding by how it was made.
- What was done
- AI-detection tools (Pangram for text, GPT-5.4-mini for images) applied to campaign websites, X posts and emails of 12,977 US candidates for federal, state and local office from 2023 to 2025, then regression and fixed-effects models on candidate features and state laws.
- What it found
- 7.6% of 29,996 text samples and 6.1% of 104,562 image samples were detected as AI. Incumbents scored 0.014 lower than challengers on a 0 to 1 scale. No disclosure was found in 505 reviewed AI-detected X images. Federal candidates in states with AI election laws scored 0.035 lower; state and municipal candidates showed no detectable difference.
- What it does not show
- Detectors are imperfect and can miss AI-edited content; data were collected after the fact, with missing sites; video was not analysed; the law comparison is descriptive and not shown to be causal.
- Status
- A preprint: not yet peer reviewed
The record
- Questions
- Who can demand evidence, delay a release or stop an unsafe deployment? · How is AI changing childhood, health and daily life?
- People
- Anna-Maria Gueorguieva (Wrote it) · Nic Weber (Wrote it)
- What we read
- We read the whole source.
- Found by
- The Radar, run of November 8, 2026, via
arxiv-ai-safety-query(tier 1: the source’s own channel or an official record) - Cite this
- arXiv, “Measuring Generative AI Content in Political Campaigns: Evidence of Rising Adoption and Non-Disclosure”, November 8, 2026. Entry in the Ctrl AI Base, https://ctrlai.com/base/arxiv-2026-11-08-generative-ai-political-campaigns-nondisclosure