Political campaigns are increasingly paying social media influencers to promote candidates online, often without disclosing the arrangement to viewers, according to a New York Times investigation published Saturday. The Times reviewed campaign finance filings and found that commentators with large followings have received payments from multiple candidates or affiliated groups this election cycle.
The investigation documented several specific cases. Josh Greene, a commentator with nearly 800,000 followers, received payments from at least seven candidates or their affiliated groups. In February, Greene told his audience that California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer was not the progressive figure he claimed to be. In May, Steyer's campaign paid Greene $21,500, and Greene subsequently reversed his position, calling Steyer the strongest progressive option in the race. Greene told the Times he only accepts money from candidates he already supports and does not view the payment as having changed his position.
Former California gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter's campaign paid 12 influencers a combined $139,500, including TikTok creator Avery Cyrus, who has 9.5 million followers and received $25,000 for a single post that was later deleted after the Times contacted the creator's agency. The investigation also identified "user generated content" firms—agencies that pay smaller creators to produce large volumes of posts that appear organic.
What the Right Is Saying
Republican lawmakers and free speech advocates are raising concerns about government overreach. Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission in June alleging paid social media accounts had attacked his military record during a primary. The practice has also been documented on the right—a coordinated influencer network was identified boosting Republican Senate candidate Nate Morris in Kentucky earlier this year.
Conservative commentators have argued that regulating political influencer content could amount to government censorship of protected speech. Some free market advocates contend that existing disclosure norms are sufficient and that additional mandates could chill political expression online. Industry groups representing social media creators have generally opposed new regulations, arguing that voluntary disclosure standards are preferable to government-mandated requirements.
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic lawmakers are pushing for disclosure requirements as a transparency and democracy issue. Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) introduced legislation in June that would require anyone paid by a campaign or political committee to disclose that payment, similar to existing requirements for traditional campaign advertising. "Voters deserve to know when the content they're seeing is paid political messaging," Takano's office said in a statement accompanying the bill.
Rynn Reed, founder of an influencer organizing group called Creator Congress, introduced a voluntary code of conduct last month asking creators to disclose payment regardless of whether the law requires it. In comments to the Times, Reed said that without clear standards, "the industry is headed toward a downward spiral in which nothing can be trusted." Progressive advocacy groups have echoed these concerns, arguing that undisclosed political advertising undermines informed voter decision-making.
What the Numbers Show
The New York Times investigation revealed significant payments flowing to influencers without public disclosure requirements. Katie Porter's campaign paid $139,500 total to 12 influencers, with individual posts costing up to $25,000. Josh Greene received payments from at least seven different candidates or affiliated groups in a single election cycle.
Currently, no federal law requires influencers to disclose payments from political campaigns. The Federal Trade Commission requires disclosure of paid endorsements on social media but explicitly exempts political messaging. Few states have their own disclosure rules, and those that exist apply only to state and local races. California does require disclosure for paid political posts, yet the Times found several posts supporting Porter without the required notices.
The Bottom Line
The investigation highlights a gap in campaign finance disclosure as political advertising increasingly moves to social media platforms. Both major parties are using influencer marketing, and the practice operates largely without federal oversight.
What happens next: Takano's legislation faces an uncertain path in Congress, where campaign finance reform generally sees bipartisan skepticism for different reasons. The Creator Congress voluntary code could set industry norms if enough prominent influencers adopt it. Watch for FEC action on Rep. Moore's complaint, which could establish precedent for how existing disclosure rules apply to digital political content.
The broader question of how to regulate political speech online without First Amendment implications remains unresolved, and any legislative solution would likely face legal challenges regardless of which party proposes it.