The June primary is over and most of the races have been called. Now its time to pick up those lawn signs, settle the books and get ready for November.
While Tom Steyer finished just out of the money, his campaign may have some unresolved issued to deal with — the use of influencers to promote his campaign using social media without disclosing a paid relationship. California adopted a first-in-the-nation law to call for disclosure in 2023. The law requires social media creators who are compensated to create content supporting or opposing a candidate or ballot measure to clearly disclose that the content is sponsored and identify who paid for it. Campaigns that hire influencers must also notify those influencers of the disclosure requirement.
According to reporting by the Los Angeles Times, influencer Jay Gonzalez was accused in an FPPC complaint of creating at least 14 pro-Xavier Becerra posts after being hired by the Becerra campaign and only later editing the posts to indicate they were sponsored. The complaint became part of a broader political fight between the Steyer and Becerra campaigns over paid influencer activity.
However, the controversy that generated the most attention involved influencers hired by the Steyer campaign itself. California regulators opened an investigation after allegations that paid creators failed to include the legally required disclosures in social media content supporting Steyer.
Among the influencers identified in media reports:
- Isaiah “Zay Dante” Washington, a TikTok creator, allegedly received $10,000 from Steyer’s campaign for content promoting Steyer but did not disclose the payment in the video. The FPPC reportedly opened an investigation into both the campaign and the influencer.
- Jason Chu, an influencer with roughly 130,000 followers across Instagram and TikTok, reportedly received $2,000 for online communications promoting Steyer. A video discussing Steyer’s background did not disclose the payment, according to campaign finance records reviewed by reporters.
The legal issue is not that campaigns pay influencers. California law expressly allows campaigns to hire creators. The issue is transparency.
The current enforcement mechanism is somewhat limited. Violations do not automatically carry criminal penalties or administrative fines under the influencer-disclosure statute itself. However, the FPPC can investigate complaints and seek a court order compelling compliance. The political consequences can be substantial, including media scrutiny, campaign-finance complaints, and allegations that a campaign attempted to manufacture grassroots support through undisclosed paid endorsements.
If an influencer is paid by a campaign, political committee, or other political advertiser to post content advocating for or against a candidate or ballot measure, the post must include a disclosure indicating that it is paid political content. The purpose is to prevent paid advocacy from appearing to be an independent, grassroots endorsement. To quote one paid influencers in Orange County, it doesn’t matter if what you post is true, you still need to disclose you’re being paid.
Both parties have obligations:
- The influencer must include the disclosure in the post.
- The campaign or committee must inform the influencer that disclosure is legally required.
The consequences for non-dislcosure are somewhat unusual.
The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) can seek a court order compelling compliance. In practice, violations can lead to FPPC investigations, formal complaints, public scrutiny, and litigation seeking to force proper disclosure.
Practical consequences
Even where monetary penalties are uncertain or limited, a campaign or influencer who ignores the law could face:
- FPPC complaints and investigations.
- Court proceedings seeking compliance.
- Public exposure of undisclosed payments.
- Allegations of deceptive campaign practices.
- Potential campaign-finance reporting issues if payments were not properly reported.
While influencer content can appear organic and independent. Lawmakers concluded that voters should know when a supposedly personal endorsement is actually paid political advertising.
It wasn’t just the Governor’s race. It happened in CA-40 with canddiate Lisa Ramirez.
- CA-40 Democratic candidate Lisa Ramirez publicly urged candidates to avoid attacking fellow Democrats and argued that voters were tired of negative campaigning.
- Subsequent FEC filings reportedly showed $1,500 payments by Ramirez’s campaign to Briana Walker for “communications consulting.”
- Walker, who posts on X under the handle “InMiniVanHell,” subsequently published multiple posts critical of fellow CA-40 Democratic candidate Esther Kim-Varet and several particular nasty one after the election. These posts appeared inconsistent with Ramirez’s public call to refrain from attacking other Democrats.
- Walker’s posts did not disclose that she had been paid by the Ramirez campaign, despite the campaign’s reported payment for communications consulting.
- Kim-Varet’s campaign alleged that some of Walker’s posts contained false, defamatory, racist, or antisemitic content and called on Ramirez to sever ties with Walker and publicly apologize.
- Since finishing third, Kim-Varet has lashed out against Ramirez and its drawn criticism.
June 8 Tweet:
June 4 tweet
You cant claim you’re running to protect democracy while simultaneously doxxing, pressuring & vilifying voters for supporting your challengers in a PRIMARY election. Seriously dumb behavior. When this carpetbagger is long gone,
In the CA40 case, it’s a federal election so the State of California influencer disclosure law probably does not apply. However, U.S. Rep. Mark Takano, D-Riverside, introduced the PAID Act (Promoting Authenticity with Influencer Disclaimers) which would be similar to the California law.
Above and beyond the law itself, transparency would be good to allay concerns of the appearance of undue influence by a campaign on an influencer’s postings. An influencer could, if they wanted to, display a disclaimer in each posting and in their bio such as “Full disclosure: I am the social media coordinator for candidate xxx. However, the views expressed here are my personal ones and not paid for or influenced by that candidate”. The candidate could also respond/acknowledge their professional relationship with the influencer. That didn’t happen in this case (other than the fec receipts which weren’t initially obviously connected to the influencer), and there is no law saying they should provide such disclaimers or acknowledgement of a professional relationship.
Walker is now claiming to be a staffer for the campaign and exempt from the influencer’s law. She has zero experience in communications consulting and $1500 a quarter ain’t a lot of bread. She was hired for her Twitter followers. And even if all that is true, the candidate stated publicly not to bash other candidates. Advice Walker did not follow making her a poor choice for communications consulting moving forward. Walker sure does love those parachute candidates who don’t live in the district they are running for.
Interesting that you are now against parachuting candidates. Were you against Hillary when she parachuted into NY state when she ran for US Senate? Or against Lorri G when she rented an office in downtown Anaheim to run from while living in the hills? How about Tom Umberg back when he rented a small apartment in south Santa Ana while his family stayed in luxurious Villa Park?
Consistency is important Dan. Especially when the internet doesn’t forget.
Or perhaps parachuting is bad only when it is done by a candidate Dan doesn’t support and can be overlooked when it is done by a candidate Dan supports. Hmmm…
The Clinton’s were never going back to Arkansas and I was delighted to see them move to NYS. Lorri Galloway was running for Supervisor to represent voters that she represented on the city council. I had no issue with that and no issue with Steven Choi moving into Woodbridge to run for assembly; my issue against him in that race was that his entire family was registered to vote from a barely finished one bedroom apartment. Tom Umberg also had represented most of the voters when he moved to run for higher office. My biggest issue with Rameriz remains her pro-life stance; she told two prominent Democrats she was pro-life before amending her Planned Parenthood survey
Can you share some more information on Lisa Ramirez and the Planned Parenthood survey? Any saved links for the original survey you mention, timeframe, reaction from the Lisa Ramirez campaign if any? (Not challenging your statement, truly interested). I didn’t see anyone challenge her with these specifics during the various campaign forums. Thanks.
Iknow she delayed submitting for because there were uncomfortable answers. I know she spoke with two DPOCmembers and she told them she was pro-life. Her campaign team insisted she was no.
Thanks for the insight. All I had seen is some comments questioning Lisa Ramirez’s position on the topic, and mentioning her husband’s role in the Catholic church (not sure what role if any as that was never revealed/confirmed by Lisa Ramirez). That would be plausible if true, since some Catholics have strong beliefs favoring the pro-life vs. pro-choice sides of the issue. Nothing I saw definitively from the Lisa Ramirez campaign. The Lisa Ramirez campaign then stated a pro-choice position during campaigning, along the lines of reinstating Roe vs. Wade. Esther Kim Varet had a clearer and stronger pro-life stance in her stated policies. Joe Kerr also had a clear policy statement along the lines of reinstating Roe vs. Wade.
Esther “pro-choice” my typo…
I don’t think her husband is Catholic, but I believe he is a minister
Was there also a residency discussion concerning Joe Kerr when he was running for some office (not CA40 US Congress)?
YES! In one of his many losing campaign (for OC Supervisor, I think) JoKer claimed residency in Brea while living in Coto de Caza as I recall.
He’s from there originally
So that qualifies him in some way? He had not resided in the district for many years.
Like Ms. Weiss!?!?