Influencers' opinions allegedly up for sale: an examination.

Unmasking the Secret Political Corruption on Social Media:

Your endless scrolling through X, TikTok, or Instagram may be more than just a time-waster—it could be the new hub for under-the-table political corruption worth millions.

In the past month, hidden documents have revealed a staggering number of social media creators—over 500—were secretly incorporated into a covert electioneering effort by Democratic donors. The goal? To sway the 2020 presidential election in favor of Kamala Harris. These covert ops didn't just involve party members with large online followings; even non-political influencers such as comedians, travel vloggers, and cooking YouTubers were offered cash in exchange for spreading "positive, specific pro-Kamala content." Unbeknownst to the public, these posts aimed to create an illusion of grassroots support for the former vice president.

Tackling the Digital Menace:

Researchers at Clemson University have spent years investigating coordinated disinformation campaigns. They fear that U.S. voters could become prime targets on election day, and they've created a quiz to help people identify online bots and trolls.

Meanwhile, a similar pay-to-post scheme among conservative influencers fell apart. The objective was to publish anti-soda messages, targeting Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s push to remove sugary drinks from SNAP food stamps. To sway public opinion, influencers were offered cash to post negative comments about soda restrictions, claiming the bans unfairly targeted consumer choice. After right-leaning reporter Nick Sortor exposed the identical messages on multiple accounts, the posts were quickly deleted, and at least one influencer even apologized, admitting, "That was dumb of me. Massive egg on my face. In all seriousness, it won't happen again."

Both schemes used deception to manipulate public opinion, with the individuals creating the content making little to no effort to disclose their financial relationships. Dishonest or not, the influencers didn't break any rules—because there simply aren't any.

Opening the Curtains:

Op-Ed: Amy Klobuchar on Protecting U.S. Elections from Foreign Interference

We now know for certain—Russia invaded our democracy. They didn't use bombs, jets, or tanks; instead, they used something far stealthier: social media.

Back in the 1970s, the U.S. enacted reforms requiring disclosure for those seeking to shape elections. Ads for political campaigns on television, radio, and print were obligated to specify the sponsors, whereas billboards or flyers sent by mail bore small print reminders of the responsible groups. However, social media, the Wild West of advocacy, remains vastly unregulated.

Influencers are generally required by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to disclose paid endorsements for products. But when it comes to politics, the story changes. Most political communication falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), but a lack of consensus among the commissioners has prevented any significant progress on enforcing disclosure requirements for influencer content.

After the 2016 presidential election, there were attempts to establish stricter social media disclosures. The discovery of foreign influence campaigns shed light on the problem, leading tech platforms to collaborate in tracking and closing "sock puppet" accounts operated by foreign governments. Yet, few reforms were institutionalized, leaving the social media landscape vulnerable to covert manipulation.

This hidden interference undermines the very foundation of democratic deliberation, as money—from interest groups, corporations, or wealthy individuals—can silently shape public discourse, making it difficult to distinguish genuine public sentiment from manufactured opinion. Consequently, our ability to recognize the truth and make informed decisions could be compromised, impacting everything from local zoning decisions to soda bans to presidential elections.

Taking a Stand:

Business

Fashion brand Revolve faces a $50-million class-action lawsuit alleging that influencers hid paid brand endorsements as part of an advertising scheme.

Secrecy in political influencing corrupts the "marketplace of ideas," where the strongest arguments are supposed to emerge naturally through competition. If genuine public sentiment becomes indistinguishable from manufactured opinion, we lose our collective ability to recognize the truth and make informed decisions.

Sunlight, as former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, is "...the best disinfectant." Transparency in political influencing necessitates regulatory action. The FEC must establish clear disclosure requirements for paid political communications on social media, and Congress should expand the definition of electioneering and political-payola disclosure to include influencer content. Social media platforms need to implement more robust tools to identify and label paid content and disclosures.

We, as citizens, must demand reform. Support influencers who voluntarily disclose financial relationships and conflicts of interests, and question those who do not.

If we fail to address the growing influence of secret money in the digital public square, we'll surrender our collective decision-making power to those who can afford to buy the most convincing voices.

Lee Fang is an independent journalist. Visit leefang.comfor more.

Crafty enterprise? Cultivating favor? Why tech leaders are befriending and bankrolling Trump

Allegations of hidden financial relationships in political influencing have raised concerns about the integrity of the democratic process, as influencers were found to be promoting certain candidates without disclosure.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) currently requires influencers to disclose paid endorsements for products, but the same standards do not apply to political communication, leaving room for deception.
The lack of regulation in political influencing on social media platforms has led to covert manipulation, with influencers receiving payment to post content that aims to sway public opinion without disclosure.
Social media influencers were recently found to have accepted money to promote Kamala Harris during the 2020 elections, creating the illusion of grassroots support and violating the principles of a fair and transparent democratic process.
Similar pay-to-post schemes have been discovered among conservative influencers, with the objective of publishing anti-soda messages that targeted public officials and aimed to sway public opinion through deception.
Tech platforms have collaborated to track and close foreign-operated sock puppet accounts, but few reforms have been institutionalized to combat hidden interference in U.S. elections.
The ongoing lack of regulation in political influencing on social media platforms undermines the democratic deliberation process, as money can be used to shape public discourse and influence elections.
A $50-million class-action lawsuit has been filed against fashion brand Revolve, alleging that influencers hid paid brand endorsements, highlighting the need for greater transparency and regulation in influencer marketing.
Transparency in political influencing is essential to maintain the integrity of the democratic process and to ensure that citizens can make informed decisions based on genuine public sentiment.
Justice Louis Brandeis once said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," suggesting that transparency is necessary to combat corruption and manipulation.
To address the growing influence of secret money in the digital public square, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) must establish clear disclosure requirements for paid political communications on social media, and Congress should expand the definition of electioneering and political-payola disclosure to include influencer content. Social media platforms also need to implement more robust tools to identify and label paid content and disclosures, and citizens must demand reform to protect the democratic process.