Your Favorite Internet Personalities May Be Bought And Paid For By Politicians
According to a New York Times investigation, political campaigns in the United States are increasingly using social media influencers to promote candidates online, often without properly disclosing these financial relationships to the public. The report highlights cases such as Josh Greene, a left-wing commentator who received payments from multiple candidates, including California's Tom Steyer, and later shifted his stance on Steyer's candidacy. Similarly, former California gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter's campaign reportedly paid influencers like TikTok creator Avery Cyrus significant sums to promote her. However, many of these posts failed to comply with California's requirement to disclose paid political content. Additionally, the article notes the use of 'user-generated content' firms that coordinate with influencers to create posts that appear organic, sometimes misleadingly. While the FTC mandates disclosure of paid endorsements on social media, it excludes political messages, leaving a regulatory gap. Some campaigns have allegedly instructed influencers not to reveal payments, and the lack of federal oversight allows for opaque funding routes.
Influencers are increasingly shaping political discourse on social media, yet many of these individuals are quietly compensated by political campaigns, often without revealing such financial ties to their audiences. A recent investigation by The New York Times uncovered widespread instances of political figures funding social media personalities to influence public opinion, raising concerns over transparency and ethical boundaries in digital politics. The investigation revealed that Josh Greene, a prominent left-wing commentator with nearly 800,000 followers, received payments from at least seven candidates or their affiliated groups during this election cycle. In February, Greene criticized California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer, suggesting he was not the progressive figure he claimed to be. However, in May, Steyer’s campaign reportedly paid Greene $21,500, following which Greene reversed his stance, declaring Steyer the strongest progressive option in the race. Greene stated to the Times that he only accepts money from candidates he already supports and insists the payment did not alter his views. Similar patterns were observed in other campaigns. Former California gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter’s campaign spent $139,500 on 12 influencers, including TikTok creator Avery Cyrus, who has 9.5 million followers. Cyrus received $25,000 for a single post promoting Porter, though the post was later removed after the Times reached out to her agency. California mandates the disclosure of paid political posts, yet the Times found several posts supporting Porter that failed to include required disclosures. The Times also uncovered the use of "user-generated content" firms, agencies that pay smaller creators to generate large volumes of posts that appear organic. One case involved a woman paid by a firm named SideShift, who posted videos criticizing high living costs in Michigan and then, the very next day, made similar posts about Wisconsin, despite residing in Kansas City, Missouri. This discrepancy raised questions about the authenticity of such content and its alignment with the creators' actual experiences. Currently, there is no federal law mandating influencers to disclose payments from political campaigns. While the Federal Trade Commission requires disclosure of paid endorsements on social media, it explicitly excludes political messaging. Only a handful of states have implemented their own disclosure rules, which typically apply only to state and local races. Some campaigns have even instructed influencers not to reveal such payments, and compensation is often funneled through multiple layers of vendors and sub-vendors, making it difficult to trace the origin of funds. Both major political parties have been implicated in this practice. Representative Barry Moore (R-AL) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission in June, alleging that paid social media accounts had attacked his military record during a primary. Additionally, a coordinated influencer network was found to be boosting Republican Senate candidate Nate Morris in Kentucky earlier this year. Efforts to address the issue have included legislative action. Representative Mark Takano (D-CA) introduced a bill in June that would require anyone paid by a campaign or political committee to disclose that payment, mirroring current requirements for traditional campaign advertising. Takano acknowledged that the bill could contain loopholes, as campaigns might still obscure payments through intermediary vendors. Rynn Reed, founder of an influencer organizing group known as Creator Congress, launched a voluntary code of conduct last month, urging creators to disclose payments regardless of legal requirements. Reed warned that without clear standards, the industry risks descending into a situation where trust becomes impossible to maintain. As the role of influencers continues to expand within political communication, the lack of regulatory clarity remains a pressing concern. With no unified framework governing the disclosure of political payments to social media personalities, the integrity of online political discourse faces ongoing challenges.
Go to the primary sources (3)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
Political campaigns are increasingly using social media influencers to promote their candidates, often through covert financial arrangements. These influencers create content that supports specific candidates, but the payments they receive are typically not disclosed to the public. This practice raises concerns about transparency and potential influence on voters. The article highlights how such strategies are becoming more common in modern political campaigns, though the exact extent and impact remain unclear. The lack of disclosure makes it difficult for voters to fully understand the motivations behind the influencer content.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual observation about campaign practices without overtly favoring any political side. It does not use emotionally charged language nor does it emphasize one perspective over another. The focus is on the method of promotion rather than the political ideology of the parties.
Why factuality (85): The article reports on a common practice in political influencer marketing where payments are often not disclosed to viewers. This aligns with multiple reputable sources discussing transparency issues in political advertising and influencer partnerships. While no primary source was available, the cl
Why objectivity (75): The tone is informative but leans slightly toward highlighting the issue of undisclosed payments, which may imply a critical stance toward the lack of transparency. The language suggests concern rather than neutrality, though it remains within journalistic bounds.
The Daily WireIndependentCenterFactual 75Objective 608/29/2026
According to a New York Times investigation, political campaigns in the United States are increasingly using social media influencers to promote candidates online, often without properly disclosing these financial relationships to the public. The report highlights cases such as Josh Greene, a left-wing commentator who received payments from multiple candidates, including California's Tom Steyer, and later shifted his stance on Steyer's candidacy. Similarly, former California gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter's campaign reportedly paid influencers like TikTok creator Avery Cyrus significant sums to promote her. However, many of these posts failed to comply with California's requirement to disclose paid political content. Additionally, the article notes the use of 'user-generated content' firms that coordinate with influencers to create posts that appear organic, sometimes misleadingly. While the FTC mandates disclosure of paid endorsements on social media, it excludes political messages, leaving a regulatory gap. Some campaigns have allegedly instructed influencers not to reveal payments, and the lack of federal oversight allows for opaque funding routes.
Bias read (Center): The article presents findings from a journalistic investigation without overtly favoring any political side. It reports on practices used by both major political parties and includes quotes from individuals across the political spectrum. The tone remains neutral, focusing on the lack of regulation,
Why factuality (75): The article presents specific examples of influencers receiving payments from political campaigns and quotes statements from individuals involved, such as Josh Greene. However, it lacks direct sourcing from the New York Times investigation beyond paraphrasing, and some details like the deletion of a
Why objectivity (60): The article uses emotionally charged language such as 'bought and paid for' and frames the issue as a negative trend without providing equal coverage of counterarguments or perspectives from the influencers or campaigns involved. The tone leans toward skepticism of political spending and influencer
During a U.S. Open tennis match, a bright ring light used by an influencer in the stands caused the chair umpire to halt the game, sparking outrage among spectators. Video footage circulated online showing the disruptive lighting and other instances of spectators filming during matches, leading to criticism that the tournament is prioritizing social media engagement over the integrity of the sport. Influencers and content creators, including those with large followings, were accused of undermining the competitive experience for players. The United States Tennis Association (USTA) acknowledged the issue, stating such disruptions are rare and that umpires can address them, though the organization has expanded access to content creators in recent years. Players like Jessica Pegula expressed concern that these distractions could be excessive and disrespectful to athletes' focus.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the issue as a conflict between traditional sports integrity and modern social media influence, aligning with conservative concerns about preserving the purity of athletic competition. The emphasis on 'disrespect' toward players and the portrayal of content creators as disruptive,
Why factuality (75): The article accurately reports the incident involving the influencer's ring light and the umpire's intervention, citing the primary source document. However, it omits key details from the USTA spokesperson's statement, such as the mention of 'infrequent' occurrences and the USTA's broader stance on
Why objectivity (40): The article uses emotionally charged language such as 'forcing' the umpire to stop a match and 'leaving fans outraged,' which frames the situation as a deliberate act by influencers rather than a rare occurrence. It also presents the influencer's actions as the sole cause of disruption without balan
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
United States
