Tom Steyer’s California campaign is drawing heat after filings show tens of thousands paid to social media influencers to push his message, raising questions about disclosure, the role of political influencers, and potential gaps in enforcement.
New filings show Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Steyer paid online creators to post political content on platforms such as TikTok, and the spending has set off alarm bells among watchdogs and rivals. Several known influencers were listed as receiving payments for “online communications,” which has prompted scrutiny over whether viewers knew they were seeing paid political messages. This kind of paid amplification blurs lines between organic support and bought persuasion in a way voters deserve to understand.
Names like Isaiah White and Jason Chu appear in the filings, and multiple creators acknowledged receiving campaign funds to produce content. Those payments fed a steady stream of videos that looked like personal endorsements but were funded by a campaign with a large war chest.
The FPPC investigation launched on May 16 and is examining whether the campaign followed disclosure rules, but the scrutiny has not stopped the outreach. One progressive influencer, Carlos Eduardo Espina, publicly said he was being paid $400,000 to promote Steyer and pose as a “Latino voice” for the campaign, a claim that contrasts with other reports that put his payment at $100,000. The conflicting figures and the appearances at events—Espina showed up with Steyer at an LA college despite being based in Texas—make the whole operation look engineered rather than grassroots.
https://twitter.com/sfstandard/status/2059651878942585228
Espina has posted dozens of videos that openly campaign for Steyer while being framed as authentic endorsements, and that manufactured authenticity worries voters. Creating the impression of a spontaneous community of supporters when posts are funded by the campaign undermines trust in digital political discourse. Voters deserve transparency when political persuasion is being packaged as personal opinion.
The reaction on social feeds has been mixed, and many comments suggest skepticism rather than enthusiasm for Steyer’s approach. Influencer posts labeled as organic endorsements drew pushback from users who felt misled once funding was disclosed. That backlash matters in a state where authenticity and grassroots energy often fuel momentum more than expensive ad tactics.
Part of the problem is a regulatory gap that lets political influencer activity slip through enforcement cracks, creating a compliance gray zone. The Federal Election Commission has not spelled out clear rules for paid political influencer content the way it has for TV and print ads, and commercial disclosure rules enforced by other agencies do not neatly apply to political speech. That mismatch has left critics on both sides calling for clearer rules so paid political posts don’t dodge the disclosure standards ordinary ads follow.
Even with the spending, Steyer’s poll numbers remain underwhelming, hovering around 15 percent in recent surveys and trailing better-known rivals. That figure illustrates a hard truth: money can buy reach but not necessarily votes, and digital surrogates substituting for real voter engagement can backfire. The collapse of other digital-first campaigns in recent cycles shows that flashy online tactics are a poor substitute for ground game and clear policy traction.
From a conservative viewpoint, the episode highlights two concerns: first, that wealthy candidates can use cash to manufacture influence in spaces meant for genuine community voices; second, that current rules let political messaging masquerade as personal advocacy. Both strike at the heart of fair political competition and informed voting. Voters and lawmakers should be wary of systems that let money create the appearance of a movement where none exists.
Campaigns that lean heavily on paid creators risk legal headaches and political blowback when disclosure is fuzzy and motives are opaque. Beyond compliance, there is a reputational price when a campaign attempts to substitute paid content for authentic consent from voters. In the end, transparency matters more than clever amplification, and voters expect campaigns to play by the rules rather than try to redefine them.
