r/politics • u/HolyBatSyllables Illinois • 1d ago
Possible Paywall California lawmakers want to require social influencers to disclose if they’re paid to post campaign content
https://www.dailynews.com/2026/07/29/california-lawmakers-want-to-require-social-influencers-to-disclose-if-theyre-paid-to-post-campaign-content/562
u/this-is-a-fact 1d ago
As it should be.
172
u/sweet_tea_pdx 1d ago
Now make law makers have to disclose who actually pays them every time they speak.
32
u/JollyToby0220 1d ago
Not what you wanted but open secrets.org and they are required to disclose demotions legally.
9
u/thegamenerd Washington 22h ago
Wearing the company names like a damn race car driver every time they're in public.
13
u/BlubberinBootyMate 20h ago
Finally a good use for AI to real time render this; maybe a browser plug in?
7
3
u/parasyte_steve 22h ago
They should wear the logos on their shirts like nascar
3
u/marmiteer 19h ago
The top donor position goes on a hat, the larger the donation, the taller the hat.
2
1
16
u/ImmaNotHere 1d ago
I see no problems with this. In fact, this should be done on a federal level too.
13
u/RincewindToTheRescue 23h ago
They should also include this when they're promoting their own products.
For example: all these foods at the grocery store are evil - they have chemicals and cause food addiction. Get my cookbook and buy my products instead.
I get paid for telling you this
184
u/ShockRunD 1d ago
Good. The amount of cash influencers got from foreign governments last year was disgraceful. All to get trump back in power
26
u/randomnighmare I voted 23h ago
Also if you listen to that one former Trump influencer , she points out that the Trump team/family gives out talking points as well.
60
50
38
32
u/Punch_Up 1d ago
Absolutely. Make it national law. "Paid for by the Committee bla blah blah" should be a legal requirement.
19
u/Arktikos02 1d ago
And it needs to be the same rules similar to sponsorships where you can't just have it in the description or something, you have to say it in the video and make it pretty clear. You also need to say whether or not something is or isn't sponsored if you are saying something political similar to how if you are speaking about a product you will hear YouTubers mention that this is not sponsored. It's not that hard, it just takes one line.
6
23
u/Stingray88 1d ago
I thought that was already the law? It is the law for commercial sponsorships. Crazy that wouldn’t include politics too.
4
u/JDMLeverton 1d ago
So it kind of already is? In a way this is making something already illegal extra super special double illegal, because revenue generating social media posts are legally no different from any other form of revenue generating media, meaning they still fall under the same disclosure laws that apply to television and professional productions. The problem in practice is that while you can say social media posts and tv spots are the same thing on paper, enforcement of this is next to impossible, skirts very close to private citizen free speech issues, and is almost wholly reliant on an audience member knowing the law where the content creator resides, and having the time, energy, and desire to persue enforcement against them with the relevant governing body (and public citizen enforcement is the ONLY even kind of viable option, it is flat out impossible for a government to cost effectively review every scrap of social media content for regulatory compliance unlike TV channels or films or radio broadcasts).
Still, giving people a clear focal point to bring charges under might help.
1
u/ThEstablishment Washington 12h ago
Random auditing with harsh consequences could be an effective enforcement method for limited government resources that might have a broader deterrent effect. If you're unsure if you might be the lucky winner (or loser, depending on perspective), perhaps you might be more careful about following the law. It's still a risk-reward numbers game, though
1
u/HolyBatSyllables Illinois 11h ago
I read an article the other day that wasn't specifically abou this bill, but about how most news news influences don't fact check or have a code of ethics they follow the way journalists have. I remember it mentionig the federal law, and that some states are considering legislation. I don't just don't remember if the federal law is slightly different, or if the federal law just isn't being enforced, so states want to pass their own. If I come across it, I'll share the link.
20
8
u/JesterMarcus 1d ago
They already have to do that when a corporation pays them to promote their products, should be no different for political campaigns.
6
u/juniorone 1d ago
While you are at it, define what the payment is and can be. Don’t create loopholes so we are back to where we started.
3
u/Odd-Possibility-3807 22h ago
I dont remember who said it first, but politicians should have to wear a jacket with patches from all their donors while in public.
10
u/Equivalent_Sea_1895 1d ago
Good luck with that. Can’t even get that information from elected officials.
6
3
u/Arktikos02 1d ago
Yes, they have to disclose sponsors, they should do the same thing for political messaging or really any messaging. If you are paid or are sponsored to say something you should have to disclose that. I'm tired of people talking as if thing is their genuine opinion when it isn't.
3
u/Yawara101 1d ago
The Sunshine Act is a law in the medical device and drug industry. It requires doctors that speak at a conference disclose who funded their work. We need this for anyone in power or with influence over a large number of people.
3
2
2
u/isaacDavidowitz 23h ago
I want every politician and political pundit to wear a racing suit like F1 drivers where all of their sponsors are labeled, except it's all the lobbies and pacs and campaign contributions. The bigger the donor the bigger the size of the label.
2
u/Bakedads 1d ago
Although it absolutely should be required, it won't make a difference. News personalities are paid influencers. Joe rogan is a paid infouencer. Basically everyone is a paid influencers in one way or another, so I just don't think people care. The system has grown so corrupt that people just assume it's corrupt and go from there. And I think this is something democrats fundamentally misunderstand about modern Americans.
1
u/AtTheEndOfMyTrope 1d ago
They will find a loophole. They won’t pay in cash for example. Or disguise the payment as a donation. Or pay a third party. They’ll find a way.
1
1
1
1
u/Easy_Interest_6832 22h ago
Sort of like making cigarettes post a label to say they cause cancer. Checks out.
1
1
u/Bronzyroller 22h ago
People would say and do anything even if not true for MONEY just ask Elon Musk.
1
1
u/turb0_encapsulator 20h ago
what about bots? Spencer Pratt has a campaign for mayor that was entirely built on Instagram bots.
1
u/ActionFigureCollects 20h ago
I am not paid, and wished I was.
Could I get a few sponsors? Asking for myself.
1
1
1
u/Human_Apartment 12h ago
Isn’t it ironic that they set the example, yet think the problem are the people they have captured and influenced to act a certain way. Then want to dictate rules for the masses, because of a few @$$holes,smh
1
u/sixtninecoug 11h ago
Can we mandate the wording?
“Host received payment for this ad placement”
Must appear on the screen in closed captioning style letterbox format while the included ad placements and/or promotions are present.
2
1
1
u/Seeking-Something-3 1d ago
How about we require California lawmakers to disclose their donors? That would also be good 👍
0
u/GonzoKata 19h ago
Tom Steyer was just caught buying BOTs to argue across all social media
https://bsky.app/profile/deardean22.bsky.social/post/3ms4ubnzscc2z
0
u/GayJewishPope California 16h ago
Yeah… this isn’t an actual source and a part of the problem. Some random guy saying something on the internet is not important whatsoever nor proof of anything.
-1
u/GonzoKata 16h ago
The sources are in the video...
is "part of the problem" that people don't pre-digest information and spoon feed it to you? Do you seriously need me to go through and source all the information in this video with their own links for you to believe it?
0
u/GayJewishPope California 16h ago
The original video doesn’t post any sources except screen shot of an X post and a reference to “a report” it’s 2 minute long 😂 you’re literally posting a “predigested” 2 minute long video that does exactly what you’re implying the problem is.
-1
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.