Moore campaign tells PAC to pull ad that says "vote for Wes" but against Question 3

ANNAPOLIS — Gov. Wes Moore's reelection campaign has sent a cease-and-desist letter to a new political action committee whose ad urges Marylanders to vote for Moore and against Question 3, the redistricting amendment Moore supports.

The PAC, Truth for Maryland, says it won't comply.

What the ad says

The 30-second spot has been running on streaming TV services, The Banner reported. It tells viewers to vote "yes for Wes" but against Question 3, and shows several photos of the governor. It borrows Moore's longtime slogan, "Leave no one behind," and says voting against Question 3 will help him keep that promise. The group has described its spending as a "multi-six-figure" buy.

What Moore's lawyers say

The letter, sent Wednesday, Oct. 21, by the Washington law firm Sandler Reiff Lamb Rosenstein & Birkenstock, says the PAC copied the campaign's colors, fonts and branding on its ad and its website and used Moore's likeness without permission, according to the Baltimore Sun and Maryland Matters.

"A lay person watching the advertisement or going to the website would assume Governor Moore was involved with the committee," the letter says.

The lawyers called the ad and website "simply a cynical political ploy to try to trick Marylanders into misinterpreting the Governor's position on Question 3, which he unequivocally supports."

The letter gave the PAC until Thursday, Oct. 22, to pull the ad, take down its website and stop using Moore's name, image and logos. The campaign also said it referred the ad to the State Board of Elections under Maryland's new law on election misinformation and deepfakes. The board said it received the complaint and will review it, according to the Sun.

"Ripping off Governor Moore's identity and branding through Trump-style misinformation and disinformation won't work in Maryland," campaign spokesperson Carter Elliott IV told the Sun.

What the PAC says

Andrew Brightwell, the PAC's chair, said the group supports Moore's reelection and called the letter "weaponization of the legal system."

"We will neither cease nor desist — we will persist," he said.

Truth for Maryland formed Oct. 14 and is registered to an address in Southern Maryland, Maryland Matters reported. Brightwell was previously a spokesperson for Ed Hale's Republican campaign for governor, the outlet reported.

As of Friday, GCN found no report that the PAC had pulled the ad or that the State Board of Elections had acted on the complaint.

What Question 3 does

Question 3 would amend the Maryland Constitution's redistricting rules. Under the ballot wording ordered by the Supreme Court of Maryland, it would clarify that certain constitutional standards, such as compactness and respect for county lines, apply only to state legislative districts, not congressional ones. It does not redraw any districts by itself. The Supreme Court cleared it for the ballot in September after a lower court had blocked it. Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 3.

Explainer: Can the governor legally stop the ad?

A cease-and-desist letter is not a court order. It's a demand from a lawyer. The PAC doesn't have to obey it, and nothing happens unless the campaign goes to court or a state agency acts.

Political speech gets the strongest protection there is. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said speech about candidates and ballot questions is at the core of the First Amendment (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976). Even false statements aren't automatically unprotected (United States v. Alvarez, 2012), and courts are very reluctant to order speech stopped in advance (Near v. Minnesota, 1931). A public official like Moore also has to meet the "actual malice" standard to win a defamation case (New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964). "Commercial speech is a stepchild of the First Amendment, but political speech is the main event," First Amendment lawyer Jim Astrachan told The Daily Record.

But "anything goes" isn't quite right. These are the angles a lawyer could try:

• Maryland's new deepfake and misinformation law (Chapter 444 of 2026, effective June 1). It bans knowingly or recklessly using a deepfake, meaning manipulated images, audio or video, to spread materially false election information, with exceptions for satire and parody. Its "election misinformation" definition covers false information about when, where and how to vote, results and voting rights. Reporting describes the ad as using real photos of Moore, not altered ones, so how well the law fits is an open question. The law is new and hasn't been tested in court.
• Maryland's authority-line rule (Election Law § 13-401). Campaign ads must say who paid for them, and ads not authorized by a candidate must say so. GCN hasn't seen whether this ad carries that line. If it's missing, that's a violation the elections board can act on. If it's there, it cuts against the claim that viewers would think Moore was behind it.
• Trademark and false endorsement. Federal trademark law bars using someone's marks in a way that confuses people about who's behind a message. Courts have applied it to political groups in some cases, but it's harder to win against noncommercial political speech.
• Use of name and likeness. Maryland recognizes a privacy claim for using someone's name or likeness without permission, but courts generally allow it for news and public-affairs commentary.
• Copyright on the photos. Astrachan said a copyright claim could be possible if the campaign can show the photos weren't public domain and the PAC didn't own them. Fair use could be a defense.

Bottom line: Moore can't stop people from talking about him or using his name in a political ad. His strongest arguments are narrower: who owns the photos, whether the ad clearly says who paid for it, and whether copying his look crosses into confusing voters about who's speaking. Whether any of that would hold up in court hasn't been decided.