Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : World Outlook -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (46164)	6/5/2025 3:20:36 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 49380

Necessary Standard or Federal Overreach? Congress' 10-Year AI State-Law Ban Draws Fierce Opposition Earlier we wrote about a controversial AI moratorium provision in the "One Big Beautiful Bill" — the massive budget reconciliation measure that narrowly passed the US House of Representatives on May 22 and is currently under consideration in the Senate. The AI moratorium provision would impose a 10-year ban on state-level artificial intelligence (AI) regulations and would also preempt over 1,000 active AI-related bills in state capitals and dozens that have already been signed into law. Proponents of the moratorium argue that a patchwork of state rules "strangles innovation and creates compliance chaos." The moratorium, however, faces strong objections from Senate lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, as well as a majority of state attorneys general. The detractors include Republican critics (despite their party's role in advancing the bill), including Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who has vocally opposed the ban, emphasizing the need for state protections from AI impersonations. She asserted a bipartisan-shared sentiment: "until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can’t call for a moratorium." Joining Sen. Blackburn in GOP opposition is Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), who said he would “do everything I can” to kill the AI moratorium and referred to the clause as “constitutional kryptonite.” He argued that states should be able to "try out different regimes that they think will work for their state" and voiced the view that "sensible oversight that will protect people’s liberties" is needed. natlawreview.com Reminds me of the ban on states regulating mortgages from national banks.