Your addictive conviction on X, Tiktok or Instagram can also be the last link for millions of dollars in secret political corruption.
During the last month, the problem came in relief. Newly overflowing documents Show that more than 500 social media creators were part of a secret effort of democratic donors to shape the presidential election in favor of Kamala Harris. Payments have gone to the members of the group with online suites but also to non -political influencers – people known for comedy publications, travel vlogs or kitchen YouTubes – in exchange for “positive and specific pro -Kamala content” intended to create the appearance of a wave of support for the old vice -president.
Meanwhile, a similar payment effort among conservative influencers publicly disentangled. The objective was to publish messages in opposition to the thrust of the Secretary of Health and Social Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to eliminate sweet soda drinks from eligible food coupons. Influencers would have offered money to denounce Soda restrictions as “an excessive excess that unfairly targets the choice of consumers” and encouraged to publish photos of President Trump appreciating Coca-Cola products. After the right -wing journalist, Nick, Surreor underlined the almost identical messages on several prominent accounts, the messages fell and at least one of the Influencers have apologized: “It was stupid of me. Solid egg on my face. In all seriously, it will not happen again.”
In the two regimes, on the left and on the right, those who create the content have made little or no effort to reveal that the payments could be involved. For ordinary users who stumble on publications and videos, which they saw would have seemed entirely organic.
In the defense of influencers, they have broken any rule – because none exist.
We require minimum transparency levels for paid approvals. In the 1970s, the United States promulgated A series of reforms requiring new disclosure for those who seek to shape the elections. Advertisements on television, radio and written press for political campaigns must specify sponsors, and display panels or brochures sent by mail also have small printed reminders of responsible groups.
Social media, however, are the West West of plea. Although influencers are generally held by the Federal Trade Commission disclose paid approvals for productsPolitics is a different question. Most communications related to the elections are the jurisdiction of the Federal Electoral Commission. But the FEC commissioners debate The problem without solving the problem. A proposal launched in December 2023 to adopt basic rules for influencers has made no progress.
There was a momentary thrust in 2017 for more strict disclosure on social networks in the political field. The discovery of foreign influence campaigns aimed at the 2016 presidential election sparked alarm ringtone. Consequently, the main technological platforms started working to follow and close puppet accounts supposedly operational by Russian and Chinese government. However, few reforms have been institutionalized and, as more and more Americans are shooting their new social media, the problem remains largely uncontrolled.
This left the entire landscape of social media vulnerable to hidden manipulation, where money from interest groups or societies or even rich individuals can silently shape which seems to be an authentic discourse. This corrosion of reality undermines the very foundation of democratic deliberation.
Democracy requires a minimum level of shared facts and commitment in good faith. Secret payments in support of candidates or causes destroy the two, corrupting the “ideas market”, where the best arguments are supposed to increase competition naturally. If a real public feeling becomes indistinguishable from manufactured opinion, we lose our collective capacity to recognize the truth and make informed decisions. Everything, from local zoning decisions, to soda prohibitions in the presidential elections can be biased.
The former judge of the Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis, noted that “sunlight is … the best disinfectant”. Transparency in political influence requires regulatory action. The Federal Electoral Commission must act and establish clear disclosure requirements for remunerated political communications on social networks. Congress should extend the definition of electoral and political-country disclosure to include the content of the influence. Platforms must implement more robust content and disclosure tools.
Most importantly, as citizens, we must demand a reform. We must support influencers who voluntarily disclose their financial relations and their conflicts of interest, and question those who do not.
If we will not about the growing influence of secret money in digital public places, the risk is disastrous: we will give up our capacity for collective decision -making and our democracy to anyone who can afford to buy the most convincing voices.
Lee Fang is an independent journalist. He publishes an investigative newsletter at leefang.com.
Knowledge
Times Insights Provides an analysis generated by AI-AI on the content of the voices to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any press article.
Point of view
Prospects
The content generated by AI-AI is powered by perplexity. The editorial staff of Los Angeles Times do not create or modify the content.
Ideas expressed in the play
- The article argues that secret payments to influencers of social media by political campaigns and donors undermine democratic deliberation by creating the illusion of organic support. More than 500 creators would have received payments from democratic donors for “specific pro-kamala content”, while conservative influencers have been paid to oppose(1)(3).
- It highlights the regulatory gap for the political advantages of social media: although the FTC requires disclosure for product promotions, the FEC has not established rules for political content, allowing secret payments to distort the public perception(1)(3).
- The opacity of these provisions is formulated as a threat to democracy, eroding the “ideas market” by mixing an authentic discourse with paid messaging. Lee Fang compares him to historical reforms that have forced transparency in traditional political advertisements, arguing that similar guarantees are absent for digital platforms(1)(3).
Different views on the subject
- Supporters of influencers' commitment argue that this is a legitimate strategy to connect with young voters who consume more and more news via social media. The Kamala Harris campaign accredited more than 200 content creators at the DNC, supervising their participation as a means of democratizing political access and amplifying the enthusiasm of the base(1)(2).
- Supporters emphasize that collaborations with influencers – such as actress Elizabeth Booker Houston – provide behind the scenes and relatable stories, which, according to them, are more engaging than traditional political advertisements(1)(3).
- Defenders claim that such efforts reflect modern campaign innovation rather than corruption, the viral viral presence of Kamala HQ (5 million followers) and the content focused on trends (for example, the alignment of summer “Brat”) cited as examples of organic engagement and focused on young people, focused on young people,(2)(3).
