BILLINGS, MONT. — On the eve of a federal court hearing over Montana’s restrictions on AI-generated political speech, Montana’s Commissioner of Political Practices has concluded that political mailers targeted by three administrative complaints are satire and announced that all three complaints will be dismissed.

The declaration, filed Thursday in Accountability in State Government v. Knudsen, represents an important victory for former Montana legislator Dan Bartel and his political committee, Accountability in State Government, which are represented by the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and Montana attorney Matthew Monforton.

Commissioner Christopher Gallus acknowledged that the three complaints had been accepted by his office and had remained pending against Bartel and Accountability in State Government. But after reviewing the materials, Gallus concluded that “further factual development is not necessary” because the political images qualify for Montana law’s exemption for satire or parody. He explained that the mailers used “humorous or outlandish images” to criticize legislators’ voting records and concluded that the images “fall squarely” within definitions of satire. The declaration states that official dismissal of all three complaints will be forthcoming.

“This is an important win for Dan Bartel and Accountability in State Government,” said Adam Schulman, senior attorney at HLLI. “Montana’s own election regulator now agrees that these images are political satire. It should not take months of administrative proceedings and a federal lawsuit before a citizen can know that he is free to ridicule politicians.”

Accountability in State Government used AI-generated images in political mailers criticizing Montana legislators’ voting records. Among other things, the mailers portrayed politicians with oversized pronoun buttons and pride flags to criticize votes on gender-related legislation, and depicted money flowing from a gasoline pump to criticize a vote to increase gas taxes. Political opponents responded by filing complaints under Montana’s new restrictions on AI-generated political communications.

Bartel sued in May, challenging what the complaint calls Montana’s “Digital Censorship Act.” The law restricts certain AI-generated political communications during the 60 days before voting begins and provides for civil and criminal penalties. Plaintiffs contend that the law discriminates based on the content and viewpoint of political speech, compels government-scripted disclaimers, and uses vague standards that invite political opponents to initiate enforcement proceedings against speech they dislike.

Thursday’s reversal comes just one day before the district court is scheduled to hear Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

“The timing is difficult to ignore,” Schulman said. “For months, three complaints remained pending and supplied concrete evidence that this law threatens political speakers. On the eve of an injunction hearing, the State now says the complaints should disappear. We think the defendants recognized the serious likelihood that the court would enjoin this unconstitutional law and are trying to avoid a ruling on the merits.”

The Commissioner’s declaration does not end the constitutional challenge. Defendants may argue that the promised dismissals eliminate the controversy. Plaintiffs disagree and intend to continue pursuing their challenge to the law itself.

The preliminary-injunction hearing is scheduled for today, August 21, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.

The case is Accountability in State Government and Dan Bartel v. Austin Knudsen et al., Case No. 26-cv-00038 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.

For more information about this case, please see our case webpage or contact the attorney below:

Contact:

Adam Schulman, Senior Attorney

(610) 457-0856, adam.schulman@hlli.org

###

Every day, there are attempts to encroach upon Americans’ constitutionally protected rights. Our legal work is dedicated to countering these efforts.

The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute is a public interest law firm dedicated to:

• Dismantling the progressive left’s attacks on civil society
• Countering government overreach
• Fighting class action abuse
• Combating NGOs engaging in civil terrorism

As a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization as defined by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, HLLI relies on support from individuals and foundations that share a commitment to individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited government. To learn more, visit http://www.hlli.org.