CA-40 Election Reveals Influencer Social Media Posts Lacking Disclosure

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:

1. FPPC complaints and investigations.
2. Court proceedings seeking compliance.
3. Public exposure of undisclosed payments.
4. Allegations of deceptive campaign practices.
5. 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