Artificial Intelligence in Election Campaigns: Perceptions, Penalties, and Implications

TL;DR

This study explores public perceptions of AI in election campaigns, highlighting concerns about deception, and suggests nuanced regulation to balance innovation with ethical considerations.

Contribution

It provides empirical evidence on public attitudes towards different AI uses in campaigns and reveals the disconnect between disapproval of deception and political incentives.

Findings

Deceptive AI use increases support for regulation.

Public dislikes AI in campaigns but tolerates non-deceptive uses.

Parties face no penalty for deceptive AI practices.

Abstract

As political parties around the world experiment with Artificial Intelligence (AI) in election campaigns, concerns about deception and manipulation are rising. This article examines how the public reacts to different uses of AI in elections and the potential consequences for party evaluations and regulatory preferences. Across three preregistered studies with over 7,600 American respondents, we identify three categories of AI use -- campaign operations, voter outreach, and deception. While people generally dislike AI in campaigns, they are especially critical of deceptive uses, which they perceive as norm violations. However, parties engaging in AI-enabled deception face no significant drop in favorability, neither with supporters nor opponents. Instead, deceptive AI use increases public support for stricter AI regulation, including calls for an outright ban on AI development. These findings reveal a misalignment between public disapproval of deceptive AI and the political incentives of parties, underscoring the need for targeted regulatory oversight. Rather than banning AI in elections altogether, regulation should distinguish between harmful and beneficial applications to avoid stifling democratic innovation.