The Center for Democracy and Technology and the Communication Technology Research Lab at the University of Pittsburgh have published a report mapping the political influencer industry, concluding that payments to creators for political content are largely untraceable and fall outside both federal disclosure law and consistent platform enforcement.
The report, “Paid to Post: Mapping the Political Influencer Industry,” draws on more than 30 interviews conducted throughout 2026 with influencers, intermediaries, platforms, and political professionals.
Payments Range From a Few Dollars to $30,000 per Post
The researchers found that payments for political content span a wide range, with some posts compensated for a few dollars and others reaching upward of $30,000 per post. In one example cited in the report, creator Isiah Washington was paid $10,000 directly by Tom Steyer’s 2026 California gubernatorial campaign for Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube Shorts content, according to campaign finance disclosures.
A separate New York Times investigation referenced in the report identified a Missouri-based woman who used multiple accounts posing as local residents in different states to promote candidates in Wisconsin, Michigan, and the California primary, and who was paid at least $30,000 through the influencer marketing platform SideShift for a mix of political and commercial campaigns.
Federal Reporting Rules Don’t Reach Individual Creators
A central finding is a structural gap in campaign-finance transparency. Federal political committees must report disbursements above certain thresholds, including the payee and purpose, but when a committee pays an intermediary rather than a creator directly, the public filing can identify the intermediary without disclosing which individual creators were ultimately paid or what content resulted. The report notes this gap exists even though the Federal Election Commission’s internet-disclaimer rule, revised in December 2022 and effective March 2023, extended disclaimer requirements to paid “boosted” posts.
The researchers also found that the audience-facing disclosure requirements that apply to commercial endorsements under Federal Trade Commission guidelines do not generally apply to political content. The FTC’s jurisdiction covers commercial practices, not political advertising and speech, leaving no generally applicable federal rule requiring creators to disclose paid political content to their audiences.
Platform Rules Conflict and Are Unevenly Enforced
The report documents inconsistent and poorly enforced policies across platforms. Instagram requires a paid-partnership label for branded content, including compensated political content. TikTok prohibits paid political content, including compensated creator posts, outright. The report states that omitting a commercial-content toggle does not make an arrangement permissible under TikTok’s rules.
Twitch’s branded-content policy similarly prohibits paid political content. The researchers found that because partnerships are typically arranged off-platform and compensated content is often indistinguishable from uncompensated content absent voluntary disclosure, platforms struggle to enforce their own policies.
State Laws Are Emerging Unevenly
California and Texas have each imposed disclosure requirements on paid online political advertising, though the report notes the triggers, scope, exceptions, and remedies differ between the two states, and enforcement remains uneven.
California’s SB 678, operative since January 2024, requires a disclaimer on campaign-paid political content, and a separate California law signed in September 2026 imposes penalties up to $5,000 or a potential misdemeanor for influencers who fail to disclose paid political content correctly. The report cites an ongoing investigation into the Steyer campaign after creators reportedly posted paid content without the required disclosure.
Public Opinion Runs Against the Current Model
A Rainey Center survey of registered voters cited in the report found that 48% of respondents said campaigns should not be allowed to pay influencers to promote candidates even with disclosure. Three-quarters of respondents said they were concerned about creators being paid by a campaign or PAC, and a majority ranked “secretly paid political influencers” as equally concerning heading into the 2026 midterms as AI-generated political content and foreign influence operations.
Foreign Funding Risk Cited as a Structural Vulnerability
The report also points to the 2024 Department of Justice indictment of two Russian nationals who allegedly used a Tennessee-based shell company, Tenet Media, to hire American content creators who the indictment says unwittingly produced content at the direction of the Kremlin-backed outlet Russia Today, as an example of how the industry’s opacity can facilitate foreign-funded propaganda.
The report identifies six stakeholder groups in the political influencer ecosystem: content creators, political actors, intermediaries, audiences, social media platforms, and government actors. It also categorizes political influencer activity, ranging from independent expression and prompted-but-unpaid access to contracted and financed arrangements.
Image source: “Paid to Post: Mapping the Political Influencer Industry”
Dragomir is a Serbian freelance blog writer and translator. He is passionate about covering insightful stories and exploring topics such as influencer marketing, the creator economy, technology, business, and cyber fraud.
The Center for Democracy and Technology and the Communication Technology Research Lab at the University of Pittsburgh have published a report mapping the political influencer industry, concluding that payments to creators for political content are largely untraceable and fall outside both federal disclosure law and consistent platform enforcement.
The report, “Paid to Post: Mapping the Political Influencer Industry,” draws on more than 30 interviews conducted throughout 2026 with influencers, intermediaries, platforms, and political professionals.
Payments Range From a Few Dollars to $30,000 per Post
The researchers found that payments for political content span a wide range, with some posts compensated for a few dollars and others reaching upward of $30,000 per post. In one example cited in the report, creator Isiah Washington was paid $10,000 directly by Tom Steyer’s 2026 California gubernatorial campaign for Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube Shorts content, according to campaign finance disclosures.
A separate New York Times investigation referenced in the report identified a Missouri-based woman who used multiple accounts posing as local residents in different states to promote candidates in Wisconsin, Michigan, and the California primary, and who was paid at least $30,000 through the influencer marketing platform SideShift for a mix of political and commercial campaigns.
Federal Reporting Rules Don’t Reach Individual Creators
A central finding is a structural gap in campaign-finance transparency. Federal political committees must report disbursements above certain thresholds, including the payee and purpose, but when a committee pays an intermediary rather than a creator directly, the public filing can identify the intermediary without disclosing which individual creators were ultimately paid or what content resulted. The report notes this gap exists even though the Federal Election Commission’s internet-disclaimer rule, revised in December 2022 and effective March 2023, extended disclaimer requirements to paid “boosted” posts.
The researchers also found that the audience-facing disclosure requirements that apply to commercial endorsements under Federal Trade Commission guidelines do not generally apply to political content. The FTC’s jurisdiction covers commercial practices, not political advertising and speech, leaving no generally applicable federal rule requiring creators to disclose paid political content to their audiences.
Platform Rules Conflict and Are Unevenly Enforced
The report documents inconsistent and poorly enforced policies across platforms. Instagram requires a paid-partnership label for branded content, including compensated political content. TikTok prohibits paid political content, including compensated creator posts, outright. The report states that omitting a commercial-content toggle does not make an arrangement permissible under TikTok’s rules.
Twitch’s branded-content policy similarly prohibits paid political content. The researchers found that because partnerships are typically arranged off-platform and compensated content is often indistinguishable from uncompensated content absent voluntary disclosure, platforms struggle to enforce their own policies.
State Laws Are Emerging Unevenly
California and Texas have each imposed disclosure requirements on paid online political advertising, though the report notes the triggers, scope, exceptions, and remedies differ between the two states, and enforcement remains uneven.
California’s SB 678, operative since January 2024, requires a disclaimer on campaign-paid political content, and a separate California law signed in September 2026 imposes penalties up to $5,000 or a potential misdemeanor for influencers who fail to disclose paid political content correctly. The report cites an ongoing investigation into the Steyer campaign after creators reportedly posted paid content without the required disclosure.
Public Opinion Runs Against the Current Model
A Rainey Center survey of registered voters cited in the report found that 48% of respondents said campaigns should not be allowed to pay influencers to promote candidates even with disclosure. Three-quarters of respondents said they were concerned about creators being paid by a campaign or PAC, and a majority ranked “secretly paid political influencers” as equally concerning heading into the 2026 midterms as AI-generated political content and foreign influence operations.
Foreign Funding Risk Cited as a Structural Vulnerability
The report also points to the 2024 Department of Justice indictment of two Russian nationals who allegedly used a Tennessee-based shell company, Tenet Media, to hire American content creators who the indictment says unwittingly produced content at the direction of the Kremlin-backed outlet Russia Today, as an example of how the industry’s opacity can facilitate foreign-funded propaganda.
The report identifies six stakeholder groups in the political influencer ecosystem: content creators, political actors, intermediaries, audiences, social media platforms, and government actors. It also categorizes political influencer activity, ranging from independent expression and prompted-but-unpaid access to contracted and financed arrangements.
Image source: “Paid to Post: Mapping the Political Influencer Industry”
The full report is available here
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Check Out Our Podcast