HB 366, while aimed at regulating the use of altered media in political advertising, presents major constitutional, political, and practical problems that cannot be fixed by minor amendments. The bill is fundamentally flawed because it undermines First Amendment free speech protections, imposes criminal penalties on political activism, risks selective enforcement, and unnecessarily expands the regulatory reach of government into citizen communication. Because of these deep flaws, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 366.
First and most importantly, the bill violates the core protections of political free speech. Under both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, political satire, parody, humor, memes, and criticism of public officials are among the most protected forms of expression. HB 366 criminalizes political advertising that uses altered images, audio, or video without a specific government-mandated disclosure. However, nowhere does the bill include any exemption for satire or parody. Without such protections, the bill creates a chilling effect: ordinary Texans could face serious criminal penalties simply for posting a humorous or critical meme about a politician. This is a direct assault on political free speech.
Second, the punishment established by the bill is shockingly disproportionate. HB 366 creates a Class A misdemeanor, which can result in up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine. This penalty is harsher than what Texas imposes for many more serious offenses, including certain unlawful immigration offenses and theft. Criminalizing a disclosure violation — especially when it involves subjective judgment about political content — is excessive and a dangerous precedent. It threatens to criminalize good-faith political activism, jokes, and legitimate dissent.
Third, the bill invites selective enforcement. Without clear statutory protections for satire and commentary, enforcement would be left to political judgment. Officials or prosecutors could target their critics while ignoring similar violations by political allies. History shows that wherever governments are given vague authority to regulate speech, selective application inevitably follows. Laws regulating political speech must be especially clear, neutral, and protective of dissent, and HB 366 fails that test badly.
Fourth, while the fiscal note indicates no major new taxpayer burden, the bill still expands government power in an unacceptable way. It grants new rulemaking and enforcement authority to the Texas Ethics Commission over a broad swath of political speech. Even if the fiscal cost is low, the constitutional cost is high: citizens should not need to fear bureaucratic enforcement simply for criticizing their elected officials online.
Fifth, HB 366 particularly harms grassroots activists. Large, well-funded campaigns can afford lawyers to comply with disclosure regulations. But individual Texans, small grassroots organizations, and everyday social media users cannot. These groups rely heavily on memes, humor, and provocative messaging to participate in government. By threatening their right to engage in that speech, the bill protects incumbents and insiders while punishing the very citizens that the government is supposed to empower.
Finally, there is no true necessity for this bill. If someone creates a malicious, defamatory "deepfake," Texas law already provides remedies through civil defamation lawsuits, fraud statutes, and deceptive trade practices enforcement. There is no justification for expanding criminal law into the arena of political communication, where the danger of government abuse is greatest.
HB 366 cannot be amended into an acceptable form because its fundamental design — regulating and criminalizing political speech — is fatally flawed. It suppresses free speech and grassroots activism. It imposes unjust criminal penalties. It enables selective political enforcement. It grows government regulatory power unnecessarily. It damages Texas's longstanding commitment to individual liberty and limited government. Lawmakers who stand for free speech, grassroots activism, limited government, and constitutional rights must oppose this bill without hesitation.
- Individual Liberty: The bill directly harms individual liberty by criminalizing core political speech, including memes, satire, parody, and criticism of elected officials. Free expression is vital to holding government accountable, yet this bill imposes serious criminal penalties for political communication without proper disclosure. It creates a chilling effect where citizens may self-censor to avoid prosecution, undermining the very heart of liberty in a free society.
- Personal Responsibility: The bill erodes personal responsibility by assuming that voters cannot distinguish between satire, commentary, and deception without government intervention. Rather than trusting individuals to think critically and evaluate political content, the bill shifts responsibility to the state to police and regulate political messages, infantilizing the public and diminishing the individual's role in a healthy democracy.
- Free Enterprise: The bill modestly harms free enterprise by increasing the regulatory burden on political consultants, small advertising firms, and grassroots media creators. Although large internet platforms are exempt, businesses engaged in political advocacy will face new compliance hurdles and potential criminal exposure, stifling innovation, free exchange of ideas, and entrepreneurship in the political marketplace.
- Private Property Rights: While the bill has minimal direct effect on tangible private property, it indirectly impacts the property right of individuals to control and use their own creative content freely. By regulating political media and mandating disclosures, the government intrudes into how citizens can use and share their intellectual property, even when that property takes the form of political satire or commentary.
- Limited Government: The bill severely harms the principle of limited government by expanding the regulatory and enforcement authority of the Texas Ethics Commission over speech and communication. It creates broad new criminal penalties that could be selectively enforced, giving government actors dangerous new tools to police citizen dissent. Even with minimal fiscal cost, the expansion of control over political speech represents a major threat to limited, accountable government.
