A political consultant is facing renewed scrutiny after refusing to comply with a federal court order stemming from artificial intelligence-generated robocalls that mimicked former President Joe Biden during New Hampshire's 2024 presidential primary. The consultant, who orchestrated the deceptive messages, has indicated he will not pay $22,500 to three voters as mandated by a recent ruling, despite a nationwide ban on engaging in similar conduct.

The controversy centers around calls sent to thousands of New Hampshire Democrats just two days before the state's January 23, 2024, primary. Recipients heard an AI-generated voice that falsely suggested voting in the primary would preclude them from casting ballots in the November general election, advising them to "save your vote for the November election." The consultant, a 56-year-old from New Orleans, admitted to arranging the message, testifying that his intent was to highlight the potential dangers of unregulated AI in campaigns. He reportedly paid a New Orleans magician $150 to create the recording, stating it was his "one good deed" to bring attention to the issue given his concerns over the lack of regulations and frequent AI calls he was receiving.

This defiance follows a complex legal trajectory. Five months prior to the federal court order, a jury had acquitted the consultant of criminal charges including voter suppression and impersonating a candidate. In that criminal trial, he argued that the New Hampshire primary was merely a "meaningless straw poll" — held in defiance of the Democratic National Committee — and therefore the state's voter suppression law did not apply. Despite the criminal acquittal, the recent civil lawsuit, brought by the League of Women Voters, proceeded. The federal judge entered a default judgment against the consultant after he failed to appear in court, ordering him to pay $7,500 to each of the three voters who sued, totaling $22,500, and issuing a nationwide injunction against similar future actions.

The consultant's response to the civil ruling has been one of outright rejection. He stated, "I never responded to them because I was already acquitted on 22 counts," dismissing the lawsuit as a "publicity stunt" and a waste of court time. This stance is consistent with his earlier refusal to pay a separate $6 million fine levied by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the same incident. Meanwhile, Lingo Telecom, the company that transmitted the calls, agreed to a $1 million settlement with the FCC in August 2024 for its role.

Legal experts and advocacy groups have underscored the significance of the civil court's decision. Caren Short, director of legal and research at the League of Women Voters, hailed the ruling as a "critical precedent against the weaponization of artificial intelligence in elections." Courtney Hostetler of Free Speech for People, which provided legal assistance, commented on the consultant's "consistent disregard for the law and the rights of voters," vowing that plaintiffs would explore further action if the payment is not made, thereby reinforcing the importance of the injunction and damages award.

The incident has also ignited a broader national debate on the regulation of AI in political campaigns. While multiple states have enacted legislation targeting the use of manipulated video or audio content mimicking candidates, the landscape of federal oversight remains contentious. Former President Donald Trump is reportedly considering pressuring states to halt AI regulation, arguing it could stifle innovation. Conversely, critics express deep concern about allowing major AI companies to operate with minimal oversight, fearing the implications for democratic processes. In a significant move, attorneys general from 36 states, including New Hampshire, recently sent a letter to Congress expressing their opposition to any federal preemption of state laws addressing the inherent risks of artificial intelligence.