I hope to win the Progressive party primary for Representative to Congress as a write-in candidate, and join the battle for freedom of speech in Vermont.
www.sevendaysvt.com/news/planet-hank-sues-ag-clark-over-i-video-investigation/
“Citizen-journalist Hank Poitras argues that his First Amendment rights are under attack as a result of Vermont’s new AI political ad law.”
After watching Hank’s video, I tried to make my own a.i. (Artificial Intelligence) political video, but not against any specific member of the United States Congress, just a general critique of their work style. So, I tried bribing my dog with bits of food to try to get her mouth moving so it would look like she is talking. I thought a dog talking about politics would be funny. Then I added an artificial intelligence male voice generator and some a.i. “image to video generator”.
The dog talks and asks if you know how much it costs to build a dog house these days?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WOzg7EOyAH0
Then I did a second video to ask for write-in votes for the primary.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Q0JLn2TayRk
Using free a.i. online image to video generators is pretty tricky, and I apologize if I pictured my dog in a bad light, but she’s not the one trying to get write-in votes.
Cris Ericson http://VermontParty.com
Summary of Act 75 Does Not Adequately Display How Bad This New Law Is!
https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Docs/ACTS/ACT075/ACT075%20Act%20Summary.pdf
Act No. 75 Page 1 of 1
2026
VT LEG #390087 v.2
This act summary is provided for the convenience of the public and members of the General Assembly. It is intended to provide a general summary of the act and may not be exhaustive. It has been prepared by the staff of the Office of Legislative Counsel without input from members of the General Assembly. It is not intended to aid in the interpretation of legislation or to serve as a source of legislative intent.
Act No. 75 (S.23). An act relating to the use of synthetic media in elections
Subjects: Elections; offenses against the purity of elections; synthetic media
This act requires that a person include a specific disclosure when publishing or
distributing deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media within 90 days before an election in
Vermont. Deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media is media that appears to a reasonable
person to be a realistic representation of a political candidate that injures the reputation of
a political candidate or of an individual that attempts to unduly influence the outcome of
an election by providing materially false information.
There are exceptions to the disclosure requirement, including radio or television
broadcasting stations that broadcast the deceptive media as part of a bona fide newscast
or if the deceptive media constitutes satire or parody.
The penalty for knowingly violating this law is not more than $1,000.00, with higher
fines if it was done with the intent to cause bodily harm. A candidate whose appearance
was misrepresented through the use of deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media may
seek injunctive or other equitable relief.
Effective Date: March 5, 2026
This Vermont pdf is unusually resistant to being copied & pasted, so 1 pg. at a time!
O.K., one page at a time, because this PDF is unusually resistant to being copied.
https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Docs/ACTS/ACT075/ACT075%20As%20Enacted.pdf
If you fully absorb the possible impacts of this new law you will be shocked.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Docs/ACTS/ACT075/ACT075%20As%20Enacted.pdf
No. 75 Page 1 0f 8
2026
No. 75. An act relating to the use of synthetic media in elections.
(S.23)
It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:
Sec. 1. 17 V.S.A. chapter 35, subchapter 4 is added to read:
Subchapter 4. Use of Synthetic Media in Elections
§ 2031. DEFINITIONS
As used in this subchapter:
(1) “Deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media” means synthetic media that appears to a reasonable person to be a realistic representation of:
(A) a political candidate that injures the reputation of a political candidate; or
(B) an individual that attempts to unduly influence the outcome of an election, including a public question, by providing materially false information to voters.
(2) “Synthetic media” means an image, an audio recording, or a video recording of an individual’s appearance, speech, or conduct that has been created or intentionally manipulated with the use of digital technology, including artificial intelligence.
§ 2032. DISCLOSURE OF DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT SYNTHETIC MEDIA
(a) Disclosure. A person shall not, within 90 days before an election in Vermont, publish, communicate, or otherwise distribute synthetic media that
Page 2 of New Vermont Law Threatening People Who Dare To Speak Up During Campaign Season!
https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Docs/ACTS/ACT075/ACT075%20As%20Enacted.pdf
No. 75
Page 2 0f 8
2026
the person knows is deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media unless the person
includes a disclosure in the synthetic media stating: “This media has been
manipulated or generated by digital technology and depicts speech or conduct
that did not occur.”
(1) For deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media consisting of images
and video recordings, the text of the disclosure shall appear in a size that is
easily readable by the average viewer and inclusive to the greatest extent
possible of individuals with disabilities. For video recordings, the disclosure
shall appear for the full duration of the video recording.
(2) For deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media consisting of audio
recordings only, the disclosure shall be read in a clearly spoken manner and in
a pitch and pace that can be easily heard by the average listener and inclusive
to the greatest extent possible of individuals with disabilities, at the beginning
of the audio recording, at the end of the audio recording, and, if the audio is
greater than two minutes in length, interspersed within the audio recording at
intervals of not greater than two minutes each.
(b) Exceptions.
Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to:
(1) a radio or television broadcasting station, including a cable or
satellite television operator, programmer, or producer, or to a website,
streaming platform, or mobile application, that:
(A) broadcasts deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media as part of a
bona fide newscast, news interview, news documentary, commentary of
Vermont Legislature Re-Opens Salem Witch Trials With New Invasive Species Law!
Note: Some confident people are certain that artificial intelligence is an invasive species that will take over our planet.
2nd Note: The Salem Witch Trials were all about a total lack of freedom of speech, as here-in recreated by the Vermont Legislature to torture by financial penalty anyone who says or records anything using whatever they might deem to be unsanitary synthetic media used to injure the prospects of election or re-election of their buddies.
https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Docs/ACTS/ACT075/ACT075%20As%20Enacted.pdf
No. 75
Page 3 of 8
2026
general interest, or on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events, provided
the broadcast clearly acknowledges through content or a disclosure, in a
manner that can be easily heard or read by the average listener or viewer, that
there are questions about the authenticity of the deceptive and fraudulent
synthetic media;
(B) is paid to broadcast deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media; or
(C) is required by federal law to broadcast advertisements from
legally qualified candidates;
(2) a website or a regularly published newspaper, magazine, or other
periodical of general circulation, including an internet or electronic
publication, that routinely carries news and commentary of general interest,
and that publishes deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media, if the publication
clearly states that the deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media does not
accurately represent the speech or conduct of the represented individual;
(3) a person that produces or distributes deceptive and fraudulent
synthetic media constituting satire or parody;
(4) a provider of a telecommunications service or information service, as
those terms are defined in the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 153,
for content provided by another person; or
(5) a provider of an interactive computer service, as defined in 47
U.S.C. § 230, for content provided by another person
Does Act 75 Punish Vermonters more, or less, or the same as IRAN punishes people who criticize leaders?
We welcome immigrants to the United States of America, but we want them to follow our laws; we don’t want them to change our laws to be like IRAN where people are punished, imprisoned or executed for criticizing their state leaders.
So, WHO made this new law in Vermont, Act 75? WHO lobbied for it? WHO may have promised the State Legislators of Vermont political campaign donations if they pass this outrageous UN-American law?
https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Docs/ACTS/ACT075/ACT075%20As%20Enacted.pdf
No. 75
Page 4 of 8
2026
§ 2033. PENALTIES
(a) A person that knowingly and intentionally violates a provision of this
subchapter shall be fined not more than $1,000.00, unless:
(1) the person commits the violation with the intent to cause violence or
bodily harm, in which case the fine shall be not more than $5,000.00;
(2) the person commits the violation within five years after one or more
prior violations under this section, in which case the fine shall be not more than
$10,000.00; or
(3) the person commits the violation with the intent to cause violence or
bodily harm and the person commits the violation within five years after one or
more prior violations under this section, in which case the fine shall be not
more than $15,000.00.
(b) A candidate whose appearance, speech, conduct, or environment is
misrepresented through the use of deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media in
violation of section 2032 of this title may seek injunctive or other equitable
relief prohibiting the publication, communication, or other distribution of such
deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media.
Sec. 2. 17 V.S.A. chapter 35, subchapter 5 is added to read:
Subchapter 5. Enforcement and Investigation
§ 2041. ENFORCEMENT
In addition to the other remedies provided in this chapter, a State’s Attorney
or the Attorney General may institute any appropriate action, injunction, or
Does Act 75 Punish Vermonters more or less or the same as NORTH KOREA?
We are now reading page 5 of the new Vermont Law shocking us all because it
appears to be such a flagrant violation of the United States Constitution.
Did you know that North Korea is one of the worst countries in the world for political persecution and freedom of speech, according to international human rights organizations? Oh, they’ll just love this new law in Vermont!
North Korea maintains total control over all media and severely punishes any form of political dissent. Citizens face the threat of execution, torture, or being sent to brutal labor camps for merely criticizing the leadership.
https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Docs/ACTS/ACT075/ACT075%20As%20Enacted.pdf
No. 75
Page 5 of 8
2026
other proceeding to prevent, restrain, correct, or abate any violation of this
chapter.
§ 2042. CIVIL INVESTIGATIONS
(a)(1) The Attorney General or a State’s Attorney, whenever there is reason
to believe any person to be or to have been in violation of this chapter, may
examine or cause to be examined by any designated agent or representative
any books, records, papers, memoranda, or physical objects of any nature
bearing upon each alleged violation and may demand written responses under
oath to questions bearing upon each alleged violation.
(2) The Attorney General or a State’s Attorney may require the attendance of such person or of any other person having knowledge in the
premises in the county where such person resides or has a place of business or in Washington County if such person is a nonresident or has no place of
business within the State and may take testimony and require proof material for that person’s information and may administer oaths or take
acknowledgment in respect of any book, record, paper, or memorandum.
(3) The Attorney General or a State’s Attorney shall serve notice of the
time, place, and cause of such examination or attendance or notice of the cause
of the demand for written responses personally or by certified mail upon such
person at that person’s principal place of business or, if such place is not
known, to that person’s known address. Such notice shall include a statement
Here's the WTF part! "violation of this chapter is subject to criminal prosecution."
Wow! Did the private-for-profit prisons
Vermont may still send prisoners to
out-of-state
Lobby for this new law, Act 75,
thou shalt have no freedom of speech in Vermont?
May I remind you, this is page 6, we already suffered through
pages 1 through 5, above.
Was it primarily Democrats who voted in favor of this new law,
Act 75?
Don’t Democrats know that real Vermonters live through
up to six months of snow all winter, and when political
campaign season comes rolling around every other Spring,
we just need to have fun!
Why isn’t the Vermont State Legislature representing real
Vermonters, rather than appearing to represent political
action committees and lobbbyists?
I guess real Vermonters are too far down on the food chain to
dish out trips to “conferences” and provide campaign donations
to the folks up there in Montpelier who are working so hard to
enact laws resembling something like those freedom of speech
laws in Iran and North Korea.
(Oh no! This is creepy, my page of text that I was just going to
copy here from the actual law, just disappeared.)
https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Docs/ACTS/ACT075/ACT075%20As%20Enacted.pdf
If I win the Progressive primary, I have to file a request for Advisory Opinion to the FEC
If I win the Progressive primary election in Vermont as a write-in candidate for Representative to Congress, then I have to file a request for an Advisory Opinion to the Federal Election Commission. They need to know that cancer can spread from one state to another. Can the Federal Election Commission protect potential candidates, like me, and take action in federal court to demand this rediculous and UnConstitutional new Vermont Law, Act 75, be immediately repealed before it destroys the Nov. 3, 2026 General Election in Vermont?
ACT 75, PAGE 6: “violation of this chapter is subject to criminal
prosecution.”
https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Docs/ACTS/ACT075/ACT075%20As%20Enacted.pdf
No. 75
Page 6 of 8
2026
that a knowing and intentional violation of this chapter is subject to criminal
prosecution.
(4) Any book, record, paper, memorandum, or other information
produced by any person pursuant to this section
shall not,
unless otherwise ordered by a court of this State for good cause shown,
be disclosed to any person
other than the authorized agent or representative of the Attorney
General or a State’s Attorney or another law enforcement officer engaged in
legitimate law enforcement activities unless with the consent of the person
producing the same, except that any transcript of oral testimony, written
responses, documents, or other information produced pursuant to this section
may be used in the enforcement of this chapter, including in connection with
any civil action brought under this subchapter or subsection (c) of this section.
(5) Nothing in this subsection is intended to prevent the Attorney
General or a State’s Attorney from disclosing the results of an investigation
conducted under this section, including the grounds for the decision as to
whether to bring an enforcement action alleging a violation of this chapter
or
of any rule made
pursuant to this chapter.
(6) This subsection shall not be applicable to any criminal investigation
or prosecution brought under the laws of this or any state.
(b)(1) A person upon whom a notice is served pursuant to the provisions of
this section shall comply with its terms unless otherwise provided by the order
of a court of this State.
No Matter Where You Are In The U.S.A. You Must Fear The Reach of the Vermont Attorney General!
LOL! New Vermont Law, Act 75, exceeds its authority and jurisdiction with intention to hunt down people in other states and prosecute them for hurting the little itty bitty reputations of certain Vermont candidates or incumbents seeking re-election!
OMG! How long did it take the Vermont State Legislature to think up this dribble?
Oh, I forgot, they probably possibly never really wrote a law all by themselves in their entire legislative lives, they might just fiddle a little bit over maple syrup pancakes with proposed laws handed to them by private-for-profit prisons and political action committees intent on keeping their imperfect candidates appearing whistle clean.
This is page 7. Have you followed along so far? Thou shalt not be lured in to express your personal creative higher spirit by online artificial intelligence (a.i.) text to video generators and image to video generators and then, to top it off, video to video generators to really make your creation exciting, while expressing your political ideas, or you can end up being charged with a crime in the State of Vermont which is now terrifying all good citizens with the abolition of freedom of speech.
https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Docs/ACTS/ACT075/ACT075%20As%20Enacted.pdf
No. 75
Page 7of 8
2026
(2) Any person that, with intent to avoid, evade, or prevent compliance,
in whole or in part, with any civil investigation under this section, removes
from any place; conceals, withholds, or destroys; or mutilates, alters, or by any
other means falsifies any documentary material in the possession, custody, or
control of any person subject to such notice or mistakes or conceals any
information shall be fined not more than $5,000.00.
(c)(1) Whenever any person fails to comply with any notice served upon
that person under this section or whenever satisfactory copying or reproduction
of any such material cannot be done and the person refuses to surrender the
material, the Attorney General or a State’s Attorney may file, in the Superior
Court in the county in which the person resides or of that person’s principal
place of business or in Washington County if the person is a nonresident or has
no principal place of business in this State, and serve upon the person a petition
for an order of the court for the enforcement of this section.
(2) Whenever any petition is filed under this section, the court shall have
jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter so presented and to enter any
order or orders as may be required to carry into effect the provisions of this
section. Any disobedience of any order entered under this section by any court
shall be punished as a contempt of the court.
(d) Any person aggrieved by a civil investigation conducted under this
section may seek relief from Washington Superior Court or the Superior Court
in the county in which the aggrieved person resides. Except for cases the court
REQUEST for ADVISORY OPINION to the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION
CRISERICSON7
9:56 PM (2 minutes ago) JULY 17, 2026
to: cela@fec.gov , ao@fec.gov
Request for Advisory Opinion
RE: Act 75 New Vermont Law Restricting Freedom of Speech During Election Season
To the Federal Election Commission
CELA
Hello FEC,
I have been actively hoping for write-in votes in the Vermont Aug. 11, 2026 primary election on the Progressive party ballot for Representative to Congress, because even though they are a major political party in Vermont they have no candidate for that office.
I am deeply offended as a citizen of the United States of America that the Vermont State Legislature passed Act 75 and then Republican Governor Phil Scott signed it into law. I feel that this new law is unconstitutional and violates my freedom of speech during election season.
I am a write-in political candidate and not a licensed attorney, so I am requesting an official advisory opinion asking if it is within your jurisdiction to challenge this law before the Supreme Court of the United States in order to have it thrown out.
News sources say the case is before the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, but that’s not the legal move I’m looking for; I want to see the law immediately challenged before the Supreme Court of the United States so we can have these threats to our freedom of speech cleared up before the November 3, 2026 general election.
I have no idea why Mr. Poitras’s attorney did not file directly to the Supreme Court of the United States to have an unconstitutional law immediately overturned because it is affecting the outcome of the Nov. 3, 2026 general election.
I might have legal standing if I win the primary election for Representative to Congress, as an aggrieved citizen and candidate for federal office, but I thought maybe you could get started on this now.
On the internet I see Henry L. Poitras v. Charity Clark, Vermont State Attorney General
Cause of Action 28 U.S.C. Section 1983 Civil Rights
S. 23, Act 75
U.S.D.C. for the District of Vermont
Presiding Judge William K. Sessions III
Filed July 8, 2026
Apparently Mr. Poitras’s attorney is Matthew Hardin.
Here is the law I feel so aggreived by, which threatens my freedom of speech:
https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Docs/ACTS/ACT075/ACT075%20As%20Enacted.pdf
Here is the Progressive Party trying to intimidate me into NOT running as a write-in candidate, which I believe I have every legal right to do under Vermont election laws.
https://www.ibrattleboro.com/opinion/politics/2026/06/vermont-progressive-party-disavows-cris-ericson/
Here is my personal response to the news I read about Mr. Poitras being under investigation by the Vermont Attorney General for his freedom of speech.
https://www.ibrattleboro.com/opinion/op-ed/2026/07/vt-legislature-wastes-tax-dollars-time-with-new-law-prohibiting-freedom-of-speech/
Here is one of the news articles that alerted me to the new law, Act 75, which I had not even known was a new law in Vermont.
https://vtdigger.org/2026/07/09/content-creator-planet-hank-sues-vermont-attorney-general-over-ai-video-probe/
Here is another article I read which alerted me to the existence of the new Vermont Law Act 75.
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/news/planet-hank-sues-ag-clark-over-ai-video-investigation/
Here is my RESPONSE to the new law on CCTV.org Town Meeting Television in Burlington, Vermont.
https://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/cris-ericson-response-news-new-vermont-law-allegedly-depriving-us-freedom-speech
I think this new law, Act 75, needs to be expunged, repealed, whatever legal term is necessary to remove it from the law in Vermont. I think the Vermont State Attorney General’s behaviour indicates she should not even have a license to practice law since she is wasting taxpayers’ money investigating Mr. Poitras. Her first concern should be protecting the citizens of the State of Vermont while our economy is so bad that people are homeless and some freeze to death in the winter, not protecting the “reputation” of a Democrat political candidate who is the only Democrat candidate on the August 11, 2026 primary election ballot for Representative to Congress, so she automatically wins the primary. Congressperson Becca Balint can defend her reputation herself, she doesn’t need to run up the State’s legal bills by complaining to Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark. It should be painfully obvious that the citizens of the State of Vermont are suffering financially since so few could afford to go out and drive around and spend gas money collecting political petition signatures. Look how few candidates are on the Republican, Democrat and Progressive ballots. It is a prima facie case of a population that can’t afford car gas, yet the Vermont Attorney General is wasting taxpayer dollars trying to legally thrash “Hank” Poitras for entertaining us all with his freedom of speech. After a long harsh winter, shivering or freezing, barely staying alive, many Vermonters need some humor. People who creatively entertain the suffering masses should be given comedy awards, not be threatened by Becca Balint & Charity Clark whose incomes are so high they have no idea how the rest of us live.
CRIS ERICSON
879 Church Street
Chester, Vermont 05143
(802)875-4038
crisericson7@gmail.com
http://CrisEricson.com
http://VermontParty.com
http://SnowballParty.org
Submitting an advisory opinion request
https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/advisory-opinions-process/
All requests should be directed to the attention of the Office of General Counsel. To ensure faster processing, requestors are encouraged to submit requests electronically via email:
Email
ao@fec.gov
FEC Refuses to Consider My Complaint Email! Oh well, I tried!
blah, blah, blah, blah, etc.
ending with …
“This office has determined that your email does not qualify as an advisory opinion
request because it does not meet the above-referenced criteria. See 11 C.F.R. § 112.1(d).
Specifically, the email asking the Commission to opine on the constitutionality of a state law
does not concern the application of the Act or a Commission regulation; does not pertain to a
specific transaction or activity that you plan to undertake or are presently undertaking and intend
to undertake in the future; does not include a complete description of all relevant facts; and
concerns the activities of third parties. Accordingly, your email does not qualify for an advisory
opinion under the Act or Commission regulations.
Sincerely,
Neven F. Stipanovic
Associate General Counsel
UPDATE! NEWS!
QUESTION:
What does the judges “stay” mean in this case?
Henry L. Poitras v. Charity Clark, Vermont State Attorney General
Cause of Action 28 U.S.C. Section 1983 Civil Rights
S. 23, Act 75
U.S.D.C. for the District of Vermont
Presiding Judge William K. Sessions III
Filed July 8, 2026
Attorney Matthew Hardin.
ANSWER:
In Henry L. Poitras v. Charity Clark, Judge William K. Sessions III issued a temporary stay that freezes the Vermont Attorney General’s investigation and the July 10 compliance deadline regarding a disputed AI-generated satire video. The order maintains the status quo to protect the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights while the court considers a preliminary injunction.