Rep. Derrick Van Orden faces ethics complaint over allegedly undisclosed AI graphic

An Eau Claire citizen filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Derrick Van Orden with the Wisconsin Ethics Commission on October 22, 2026, over an allegedly undisclosed AI-generated graphic of Rebecca Cooke. Cooke’s campaign says the post violated state ethics law; Van Orden dismissed the complaint as a publicity stunt, WEAU reported.

A complaint after a warning letter

The Cooke campaign alleges that Van Orden posted another AI-generated graphic depicting the Democratic candidate without identifying its use of AI. The campaign described that omission as a direct violation of Wisconsin ethics laws. That is the campaign’s allegation, not an established finding of a violation.

The dispute predates the filing. Cooke’s attorneys sent Van Orden a cease-and-desist letter on September 30, alleging that he repeatedly posted defamatory videos on social media. The letter accused him of depicting Cooke saying and doing things that were “pure fiction.” Those accusations concerned earlier videos, while the new complaint concerns a graphic.

In his response to WEAU, Van Orden called the complaint a “cheap publicity stunt” and said it was “filed three months too late.” He portrayed it as an attempt to distract from Cooke’s debate performance. Although his response called it Cooke’s complaint, WEAU identified the filer as an Eau Claire citizen.

if you persist in running a campaign against an AI deepfake strawman… we will evaluate all legal options to address that misconduct.

Cooke’s attorneys, September 30 letter, as quoted by WEAU

The disclosure rule is not a blanket requirement

Wisconsin’s 2024 law requires disclosure for certain political advertisements containing AI-produced audio or video, according to Channel 3000’s account of the law. It provides for a $1,000 fine per violation. The requirement therefore concerns specified advertising content, rather than every use of AI by a candidate or campaign.

There is also a funding exception. AI-generated social media content posted by a candidate or campaign is exempt from that disclosure requirement when it is not paid for with campaign funds. Under that rule, whether campaign money paid for a post matters alongside the question of whether AI produced its content.

That leaves two material questions unresolved for this complaint: whether the graphic falls within the law’s covered categories, and whether campaign funds paid for it. The campaign’s allegation that a post lacked an AI label does not, by itself, settle whether that particular post required one.