AI Impersonation Raises Election Concerns

smartphone showing an incoming robocall screen — Photo: Ivan Marc / Shutterstock

A Los Angeles City Council candidate says a political group used an AI clone of her own voice to trick voters into believing she made statements she never said.

Story Snapshot

Nithya Raman’s campaign filed ethics complaints claiming a Bass-backed group, Thrive LA, used an AI voice clone of her to answer phone calls in real time.
The complaints cite California laws against digitally faking a candidate’s voice and against hiding AI use in political ads.
Thrive LA calls the complaint “false and absurd” and says the ads were legal satire with properly disclosed spending.
The Los Angeles City Ethics Commission and the California Fair Political Practices Commission have not yet ruled on the claims.

Campaign Says AI Voice Pretended To Be Raman

Nithya Raman’s campaign filed complaints on October 26, 2026, accusing the group Thrive LA of building an interactive phone line powered by an AI clone of her voice. Callers heard the fake Raman speak in the first person and answer questions live, attributing comments to her that she never made, according to the complaint.

The Los Angeles Times reported the AI voice did not clearly say it was not a real person unless someone asked directly. A separate report said the voice never named Thrive LA as the sponsor or revealed the call was AI-generated political advertising. Another outlet reported the system did identify Thrive LA and admit it used AI when a caller pressed it. The conflicting accounts show different callers may have gotten different responses from the same system.

Complaint Points To Specific State Laws

Raman’s campaign did not just call the ads unfair. It pointed to two exact laws. California Elections Code Section 20012 bans knowingly and maliciously spreading digitally faked audio that makes a candidate appear to say something they didn’t, within 30 days of an election. Government Code Section 84514 requires campaigns to disclose when their ads use AI-generated or heavily AI-altered material. Raman’s team filed with both the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission and the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

Timing Puts Case Inside Legal Window

The complaint landed eight days before the November 3 election, inside the 30-day window the state law covers. That timing means the Ethics Commission faces pressure to act fast, but as of the reporting, it had issued no finding. That leaves the accusations as unproven claims rather than a settled violation, even though the campaign has formally asked two government bodies to investigate.

Thrive LA Denies Wrongdoing, Cites Satire Protections

Thrive LA’s executive director, Ana Teresa Dahan, rejected the complaint outright. She called it “false and absurd” and said the group’s ad spending was properly disclosed under city ethics rules. Dahan defended the campaign, which used fake “Nithya Raman Realty” signs and social media posts, as protected political satire that followed campaign-finance law. She also accused Raman’s campaign of trying to silence critics instead of answering the ads’ substance.

Nithya Raman's campaign just filed this Ethics complaint (w/EXHIBITS!) against Thrive LA, accusing the PAC of spray-painting the floors with "Poop Zone, courtesy of Nithya Raman" w/o disclosure disclaimers, and for AI impersonations of Raman's voice, etc. https://t.co/zbw2rXdHUY pic.twitter.com/Van6ePxn2V

— Elizabeth Chou (@reporterliz) October 26, 2026

Reports describe five separate alleged disclosure violations tied to the Thrive LA campaign, though the available coverage does not spell out each one or match it to a specific law. Thrive LA is identified as a political group backing incumbent Mayor Karen Bass, which means the fight carries built-in stakes for who controls Los Angeles city government, not just a dispute over one ad campaign.

Part Of A Bigger Pattern In Political Ads

This clash is not an isolated case. Researchers tracking the 2026 election cycle counted at least 164 ads nationwide using AI-generated or AI-enhanced content, tied to roughly $80 million in spending, with about 69% lacking a clear AI disclosure. That number includes harmless editing along with more deceptive uses, but it shows fights over AI voice clones, fake disclosures, and digital impersonation are becoming a normal part of campaigns, not rare exceptions.

The Raman-Thrive LA dispute sits right at that edge. The AI system reportedly generated fresh answers to callers in real time rather than playing one fixed recording, a format current state disclosure laws were not built around when they were first written. Voters now face a growing challenge: figuring out whether a political voice on the phone or in an ad is real, scripted, or something else entirely.