Senate votes against curbing state-level AI regulation
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had pushed for an amendment to Trump's tax bill that would ban states from regulating the AI industry for ten years — if the state took AI infrastructure funding included in the aforementioned bill. A version of the provision passed the House in May.
On Sunday, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) agreed to a version which would reduce the moratorium to five years and include exceptions for regulations around child safety, deceptive acts and protection of a person's likeness, voice, name and more.
The new provision also exempted Tennessee's Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act, enacted last year. The ELVIS Act was passed to prevent AI from using musician's likeness and voice without their consent.
Yet, backlash against the amendment continued from Republican and Democrat leaders, Politico reports. My day's end Blackburn had found sense and withdrew her support. The senate voted early Tuesday morning to nix the amendment, with even Cruz backing its removal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Solar Firms Surge as Senate Drops Excise Tax From Trump Bill
(Bloomberg) -- Shares for solar companies rose on Tuesday on the Senate's decision to remove an excise tax on wind and solar projects from President Donald Trump's tax and spending bill. Struggling Downtowns Are Looking to Lure New Crowds Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer Shares in Sunrun Inc. were up about 11%, Enphase Energy Inc. was up about 4% and Solaredge Technologies Inc. were up 9% at around 12:49 p.m. in New York after news reports on the change. The Senate passed the $3.3 trillion bill on Tuesday after making the last-minute change and other modifications meant to mollify some Republicans. The measure spiked a previously proposed excise tax on wind and solar projects that contained a certain threshold of components made in China, Senator James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma, told reporters Tuesday. That proposed tax, which had been tucked into the Senate bill unveiled days ago, was supported by some US manufacturers who said the country needs to urgently wean clean energy supply chains off China. But it had sparked alarm from renewable developers who said it could hike costs for wind farms and solar arrays that still rely on some foreign components and supply chains dominated by Beijing. Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, hailed the removal of the excise tax in a post on X ahead of passage. The bill would still phase out subsidies for wind and solar projects placed in service after December 31, 2027; some Republicans had made a last-ditch push to ease the credit cutoff. The various iterations of Trump's tax and spending package have whipsawed much of the renewable energy industry — and, with it, shares of developers, installers and manufacturers. The proposed addition over the weekend of the tax on some wind and solar projects stunned the industry, prompting shares to slide Monday. But now, with the excise tax's removal, shares popped on a day that would otherwise have threatened the pace of the growth of renewable energy in the US. Clean energy trade groups had warned that without changes, Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' would have threatened some wind farms and solar arrays already under construction. The changes weren't enough to satisfy renewable developers who on Tuesday said the Senate-passed bill still poses a major threat to the industry. 'Despite limited improvements, this legislation undermines the very foundation of America's manufacturing comeback and global energy leadership. If this bill becomes law, families will face higher electric bills, factories will shut down, Americans will lose their jobs, and our electric grid will grow weaker,' Abigail Ross Hopper, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said in a statement. --With assistance from Erik Wasson. America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House SNAP Cuts in Big Tax Bill Will Hit a Lot of Trump Voters Too China's Homegrown Jewelry Superstar Pistachios Are Everywhere Right Now, Not Just in Dubai Chocolate ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Today's Market: Tax Bill Uncertainty Ignites Dow Rally, Sends Nasdaq Tumbling
July 1 - U.S. equity benchmarks diverged Tuesday as lawmakers debated extending Trump?era tax cuts. The Dow Jones Industrial Average edged up about 1%, while the S&P 500 slipped less than 0.5%. The Nasdaq Composite slid about 0.5% from its record high. Investors are weighing the prospects of a fresh tax package that could roll back individual and corporate rates, which some see as a boon for consumer stocks and small?caps. Uncertainty over the bill's details, such as the duration of rate extensions and offsets for lost revenue, has prompted traders to pare back exposure to high?valuation technology names. Technology shares led declines, with semiconductors and software companies under pressure. Meanwhile, financials and industrials found modest support, buoyed by expectations of sustained consumer spending if tax relief is approved. Treasury yields held near recent peaks, reflecting growing confidence in near?term economic strength but also fears of higher deficits. Market participants will focus on upcoming congressional sessions for clues on the bill's final shape. With fiscal policy negotiations set to intensify, investors may see further volatility as new details emerge. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
Los Angeles Times
18 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
From Trump to Newsom, litigious politicians declare open season on news orgs
Critics of President Trump may have cheered the defamation lawsuit filed by Gov. Gavin Newsom against Fox News for giving the White House a spoonful of its own litigious medicine. Newsom is suing the conservative-leaning network alleging it intentionally distorted the facts in its reports on the timeline of the governor's conversations with Trump amid the deployment of the National Grard in Los Angeles during immigration raids in the city. But legal experts are concerned that it may just be the bipartisan escalation of an ongoing trend: use of defamation suits as a political weapon. The tactic, largely used by Trump and his allies until Newsom's salvo, has put the media business and its legal defenders on high alert. 'There has been an outbreak of defamation lawsuits over the last 10 years since President Trump came on the scene and threatened to open up the liable laws,' said Ted Boutros, an attorney with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Los Angeles. 'It has been remarkable and has a chilling effect on speech.' Trump has aggressively used the courts to punish media outlets he believes have crossed him. Trump extracted $15 million from ABC News after George Stephanopolous said the president was convicted of rape rather than sexual abuse in the civil case brought by E. Jean Carroll. He's pushing for a massive payment from CBS over a '60 Minutes' interview he claims was edited to make former Vice President Kamala Harris more coherent. Although CBS denies Trump's claims and 1st Amendment experts say the case is frivolous, the parties are reportedly headed for a settlement. Trump is also continuing his lawsuit against the Des Moines Register over a poll that showed him losing Iowa in the 2024 election, moving it to state court Monday after the case appeared to be faltering at the federal level. Trump hasn't stopped there. Last week, he threatened CNN and the New York Times with legal action over their coverage on an early intelligence report that said the military attack on Iran's nuclear program had only set it back a few months. On Monday, Tom Homan, Trump's chief adviser on border policy, called for the Department of Justice to investigate CNN for reporting on the existence of an app that alerts users to ICE activities. 'We have crossed over into a new world,' said Lee Levine, a retired 1st Amendment attorney whose clients included CBS News. 'Everybody has taken note and tried to position themselves the best that they can to weather the assault.' Newsom, a contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, took his shot last week with a suit alleging Fox News intentionally manipulated its coverage of a late-night June 6 phone call he made to Trump. Trump later falsely stated on June 10 that the two were in contact 'a day ago,' while Newsom asserted they never spoke after June 6. Newsom's lawyers allege in the complaint that by making the call seem more recent, Trump could suggest they discussed the deployment of troops to Los Angeles, which they had not. The governor's legal team alleged the conservative network's coverage covered up Trump's false statement that the two had spoken on June 9 while a banner on the bottom of the screen said 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call.' The suit asks for $787 million — the amount Fox paid Dominion Voting Systems to settle its defamation case over false statements — if Newsom doesn't get a retraction and on-air apology from host Jesse Watters who presented the segment on the calls. (Fox News has called the suit a publicity stunt and said it will fight it in court.) Andrew Geronimo, director of the Dr. Frank Stanton First Amendment Clinic at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, believes Newsom's actions are tailored to get the public's attention rather than that of the court itself. Newsom has been aggressive in his efforts to combat misinformation disseminated by right wing media outlets, and the lawsuit clearly turned it up a notch. Experts say high-profile politicians have the ability to get their message out without going to court. 'The idea that there is this dollar amount in the millions that they've been damaged by the reporting rather than coming out there and account the facts straightforwardly I think is sort of laughable,' Geronimo said. The calls for possible legal actions against journalists reporting on information leaked by government officials, as is the case in the Iran intelligence stories, is considered a far more troubling development. The long-term danger is that the suits can ultimately weaken laws that protect press freedoms, such as the ability to publish government information as long as it was obtained in a lawful matter. 'With everything the U.S. Supreme Court has been doing lately, all of these press protections could be on the table,' Geronimo said. 'Journalists for years have relied on Supreme Court case law that, if someone leaks something to them, they can publish it as long as they did not participate in the illegal collection of it.' The chilling effect could be particularly acute for large publicly owned media companies that have business before the government. It's unlikely that CBS parent Paramount Global would settle over '60 Minutes' if it did not have an $8 billion merger deal pending that requires approval of the Federal Communications Commission now led by Trump appointee Brendan Carr. 'The fusion of libel suits and government officials in office is a pernicious development,' said Boutros. 'When you have the president of the United States... wielding defamation suits when they have some degree of power over those companies that they can assert, that puts the companies in a terrible position.' It also puts more strain on the legal system. While Trump and Newsom are getting headlines, Boutros noted there are similar politically motivated defamation cases coming in with 'useless claims that we have to litigate.' 'It's costly for people who are just participating in a public debate,' he said. 'We'd rather have less business and more freedom of the press.'
