In a recent campaign advertisement, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has employed familiar elements from the state’s college football culture to satirize Democratic candidates as the November elections approach. The ad, which seems to be AI-generated, raises questions about the use of university branding in political contexts.
Texas universities have strict regulations regarding the use of their names and symbols, particularly in political advertising. Patrick’s ad challenges the enforcement of these guidelines, as officials from the University of Texas, Texas Tech, and Texas A&M have not responded to inquiries regarding whether he obtained permission for the ad’s content or if university resources were involved in its creation. State law prohibits public universities from using their resources to endorse political candidates.
As a powerful figure in Texas politics, Patrick oversees the Senate, a position that grants him substantial sway over state funding for public universities. He has consistently threatened funding reductions while advocating for a shift away from what he deems “woke” policies. Legal expert Andrew Cates noted that the universities may hesitate to challenge Patrick, fearing political and financial repercussions.
Patrick’s campaign team has not clarified whether they sought authorization from the universities for the use of their trademarks. State Representative Terry Canales, a Democrat from Edinburg, has questioned the university presidents on this matter, urging them to take action if they did not approve the ad. Texas A&M has acknowledged receipt of the inquiry, while UT and Texas Tech have yet to respond.
On September 5, Patrick shared the ad on social media with the caption, “College football is back. Before the first whistle, take a look at the failed playbook Goodwin and her socialist squad have for Texas.” The advertisement features Patrick’s Democratic opponent, Vikki Goodwin, portrayed as devising new tax ideas at a fictional UT football event.
The ad also includes scenes of other Democratic candidates, such as Gina Hinojosa, the gubernatorial nominee, who is seen demanding gun permits, and James Talarico, a Senate candidate, critiquing the Aggies’ “12th Man” tradition. While the ad identifies Patrick’s campaign as the sponsor, it does not disclose its AI-generated nature. By Friday, the post had garnered over 907,000 views.
In a follow-up video, Goodwin accused Patrick of misrepresenting her views through AI-generated content, claiming he was unable to counter her arguments with facts.
Policies regarding political use of branding differ among the universities. Texas A&M explicitly forbids the use of its logos and traditions in political contexts, emphasizing the importance of neutrality for maintaining its integrity as a public institution. Texas Tech requires written approval for any political use of its trademarks, while UT also restricts unlicensed advertising involving its logos.
Both Texas A&M and UT have previously taken legal measures against unauthorized use of their trademarks, demonstrating their commitment to protecting their brands. For instance, Texas A&M recently issued a cease-and-desist order against a group using a name that infringed on its trademarks, while UT filed a lawsuit against a business misusing its Longhorn silhouette.
Although the appearance of the universities in Patrick’s advertisement does not automatically violate state laws on political activity, experts clarify that the focus is on the universities’ involvement rather than the mere use of their imagery.
Patrick has increasingly utilized AI in his campaign ads since June, often targeting leading Democratic figures. He first mentioned Goodwin in an ad last month, but it primarily featured archival footage of her.
Texas legislation addressing deepfake content in political campaigns is limited to videos released within 30 days of an election. Patrick’s ad, posted well ahead of the November vote, falls outside this timeframe.
Legal experts point out that proving intent to deceive under existing laws makes enforcement challenging. While Patrick’s ad may not mislead viewers, there is a consensus that lawmakers should proactively amend the law to prevent future deceptions.
Last year, attempts to strengthen regulations regarding deceptive political advertising failed to pass. One proposed bill aimed to mandate disclosures for ads showing candidates in fabricated scenarios, while another sought to extend the current law’s limitations. There are calls for renewed efforts to address these gaps as the next legislative session approaches.
