Full Breakdown
California Gubernatorial Race: Influencer Payments Spark Transparency Probe
5/27/2026, 1:28:58 AM
Steyer Campaign’s Influencer Payments Under Investigation
A complaint filed with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) alleges that Tom Steyer’s 2026 gubernatorial campaign failed to disclose paid political influencer content on TikTok, Instagram, X and other platforms. The filing, submitted by attorney Nick Rowley on behalf of creator Margaret “Maggie” Reed, claims the campaign paid $5,000 for Reed’s videos but coded the expense as “Palette Media” under digital-advertising categories, thereby obscuring the nature of the payment. The FPPC has opened an investigation into whether the campaign violated state transparency rules that require paid political content to be labeled as such.
Background & Context
In 2023 Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law mandating that online creators disclose any compensation received for political advertising. The statute was intended to make voters aware of paid influence in an era where campaigns increasingly rely on TikTok, Instagram, meme accounts and other digital channels. Federal oversight remains fragmented, with the Federal Trade Commission policing stealth advertising while the Federal Elections Commission lacks robust enforcement capacity.
Key Figures & Groups
- Tom Steyer – Billionaire hedge-fund founder and Democratic gubernatorial candidate.
- Xavier Becerra – Former HHS secretary and Steyer’s primary opponent, who denies paying influencers.
- Rob Bonta – California Attorney General, overseeing the review of complaints.
- FPPC – Independent agency enforcing California campaign-finance law.
- Group Project Digital – Primary communications firm hired by Steyer.
- SideShift – Marketplace connecting creators with brands, used by the campaign.
- Cyabra – Service that identified coordinated “fake-profile” activity against Steyer.
- Margaret “Maggie” Reed, Isaiah “Zayy Dante” Washington, Serabeth Mullaney – Influencers and critics involved in the dispute.
Data & Statistics
- Steyer’s campaign spent over $130 million of personal funds, making it one of California’s most expensive gubernatorial primaries.
- Influencer-related expenditures total more than $123,000, including contracts such as a $5,000 fee to Reed.
- Creators were offered $10 per video with bonuses tied to view counts; some were instructed to post three to four videos weekly on issues like taxing the rich, abolishing ICE, climate policy and AI regulation.
- The campaign’s brief targeted 18-54-year-old women, Black voters and liberal audiences in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Official Statements & Responses
Attorney General Bonta said his office is “looking into” the complaints but emphasized that “the FPPC makes sure that all the rules are being followed, disclosures are made, reporting is done right and accurately.” The Steyer campaign, via spokesperson Kevin Liao, asserted that “payments for creator content are disclosed in campaign finance reports” and that creators were notified of their disclosure obligations, calling the complaint “baseless.” The campaign also released a Cyabra analysis suggesting that anti-Steyer messaging originated from a “cross-platform influence campaign” involving coordinated fake profiles.
Criticism & Opposition
Complaints allege that influencers such as Isaiah Washington failed to include required disclosures, potentially misleading voters. Serabeth Mullaney described the practice as “predatory,” noting that many creators receive “almost word-for-word scripts” without clear labeling. Nick Rowley highlighted a loophole allowing campaigns to hide influencer payments while still complying with the letter of the law. Xavier Becerra’s camp denies paying influencers but has faced parallel accusations of undisclosed support.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ on whether Becerra’s campaign made influencer payments; Becerra claims none, while complaints suggest otherwise. The status of “slop” accounts that reshared pro-Steyer content remains unclear—whether they were paid or merely engagement farms is disputed. Additionally, the campaign’s Form 460 listed influencer fees under “digital advertising” rather than the required “WEB” category, raising questions about reporting accuracy.
Verbatim Quotes
- “looking into” — Rob Bonta, California Attorney General
- “Cyabra’s analysis indicates that the fake profiles involved in the anti-Steyer campaign were part of a broader recurring political influence network that had already operated together in previous U.S. political conversations,” — Steyer campaign (Cyabra report)
- “Consistent with state law, payments for creator content are disclosed in campaign finance reports, and we notify creators we directly work with of their disclosure requirements. As a result, we are confident the complaint is baseless,” — Kevin Liao, Steyer campaign spokesperson
- “engaged her to create and publish social media content concerning Tom Steyer on TikTok, Instagram, and X without informing her that California law required the posts to disclose that they were paid political communications.” — Margaret “Maggie” Reed, influencer
- “As a professional in social media, I am seeing a lot of videos using almost word-for-word scripts about candidates that are not disclosing they are paid ads,” — Serabeth Mullaney, brand and community lead
What’s Next
The FPPC’s investigation will determine whether the campaign’s disclosures satisfy California law and may result in enforcement actions or fines. Outcomes could shape how future campaigns employ digital influencers and influence potential amendments to the state’s transparency statutes.
