Political money is flowing to influencers. But from whom?

"“I really believe Tom Steyer is different,” Espina said in a speech that he posted on social media. “He could be traveling around the world or doing whatever he wants, but he wants to serve the people of this state.” Unmentioned in Espina's post: Steyer's campaign was paying him $100,000 to help win the election."

"A few days earlier, Espina, who lives in Texas, had noted in a video that the campaign hired him to consult on issues related to Latinos, which are the primary focus of Espina's social media posts. But none of his several dozen subsequent posts on TikTok, Instagram or Threads promoting Steyer noted the financial arrangement."

"The $100,000 fee, buried in campaign finance records, is described as a payment for “strategic advice and campaign surrogacy.” The money went to a limited liability company in Texas that Espina also used to receive a travel reimbursement from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2024."

"Espina's arrangement provides a rare glimpse into the world of pay-for-play social media, where content creators and marketing firms are increasingly compensated to promote candidates or points of view and where there are few requirements for disclosure. The paid advocacy exists outside the realm of traditional lobbying and campaigning, reaching younger, more online audiences unlikely to be swayed by television advertisements or glossy mailers."

A progressive influencer with 14.5 million TikTok followers endorsed Tom Steyer for California governor, saying Steyer wanted to serve state residents. The endorsement did not mention that Steyer’s campaign paid $100,000 to the influencer for strategic advice and campaign surrogacy. The payment was recorded in campaign finance records and routed to a Texas limited liability company associated with the influencer. The influencer had previously said the campaign hired him to consult on Latino issues, but later promotional posts across TikTok, Instagram, and Threads did not disclose the financial arrangement. The case illustrates pay-for-play political advocacy that compensates creators to promote candidates or viewpoints with limited disclosure requirements, targeting younger online audiences.

Read at Miami Herald