Breaking down the lack of disclosure in paid creator content
Alex Cooper, MrBeast, Ballerina Farm and Amelia Dimoldenberg
The first creator event featuring Thomas Paine
Illustration by Annelise Capossela/For The Washington Post; iStock
Why it’s so hard to know who paid for political content on social media
This week I’m answering one of the questions I am asked most frequently as a campaign-turned-creator reporter: What’s with all the discourse and scandals around political creators and how they are, or are not, being paid for their political engagement?
Just look at the drama around the recent California gubernatorial primary, in which a creator was paid $400,000 that they did not initially disclose; or how a creator stirred up the Texas Senate primary by claiming one candidate dismissed another as “mediocre.” There is ongoing coverage of Hasan Piker’s endorsements and whether candidates should accept them; not to mention Taylor Lorenz’s reporting about shady Chorus contracts that politicos are still talking about almost a year later.
As someone who spent a good chunk of the last three years trying to convince people that creators matter and should be a center part of today’s political coverage, I’m glad that these debates are even occurring and that the political press corps is finally beginning to tune in. And to be clear, creators aren’t new to politics. But they’ve reached a level of such significance to campaigns and elections that they truly cannot be ignored, and there’s still a huge lack of understanding about the space.
Political creators have told me they think audiences are woefully unaware of how much political content is paid, and also expressed frustration about how much extra scrutiny they face from their audiences compared to creators with other focus areas.
I turned to Isabel Linzer, a policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology, to help break down the conditions that have made it such a fertile ground for controversy.
In short: an absence of disclosure on political content, like one might see on an ad for a product or indicating a partnership on a brand trip, suggests to online audiences that a creator isn’t being paid for their political activism. But really those disclosures about who is funding political content are absent because the Federal Trade Commission, which regulates disclosures for products, has no statutory authority over political content. Political speech is instead governed by the Federal Election Commission, which is more focused on candidate and committee spending on traditional media like radio or TV ads, allowing creators to fall through the gaps.
I reached out to the FEC and asked if they plan to further regulate creator content and they did not respond by deadline. Earlier this month Rep. Mark Takano (D-California) introduced a bill that would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to require any person who is paid by a political committee or candidate to include a disclaimer that they were paid to post content.
For now audiences and voters are left confused about where a creator’s own political speech turns into undisclosed paid messaging, which can have real consequences as Americans increasingly get their information via social media and experience politics online.
“The rules and kind of transparency efforts that we are just used to in political campaigning, generally, just simply don't apply in most cases when it comes to influencers,” Linzer said.
In other words, the issue isn’t going anywhere and is only going to get more inescapable as we head towards the midterms and 2028 presidential election. …
The Creator Takeover: How creators flexed their power this week.
💸 CAA and Integrated Media Co. announced a $250 million creator economy holding company
⚽ The U.S. is requiring foreign creators to get work visas for the World Cup
🎙️ Vanity Fair published their long anticipated look at Alex Cooper’s Unwell, and Unwell launched a Substack
🥇 MrBeast became the first individual creator to reach 500 million YouTube subscribers
🩰 The Ballerina Farm Store’s impact on Midway, Utah
🍗 Amelia Dimoldenberg is expanding Dimz Inc. Academy
🎥 Kynetic Media Ventures, Dolphin Entertainment launched Graviteur Studios for creator projects
The Platforms
LinkedIn introduced a new ad platform section to help advertisers identify creators
YouTube announced the first YouTube FIFA Creator Cup
Faceless creators take a hit as YouTube cracks down on AI slop
Substack unveiled new updates to native sponsorships and built Creator Kits for Substackers to pitch potential brand partners
Spotify announced a new standard for podcast plays and upgraded creator analytics
Raye, Mumford & Sons, John Summit among performers for Cannes Lions Spotify Beach
Close Friends: Content I sent my friends this week.
Where I went: Last week I went to two extremely DC creator events. First, I watched a historical impersonator and the Gen Z historian Khalil Greene speak at the “Thomas Paine Would Have Had a Substack” event cohosted by the platform and More Perfect’s In Pursuit, where coasters read “Join Substack or Die.” Then it was off to the Italian Embassy for a series of panels about the midterms featuring Aaron Parnas, Barrett Adair, Suzanne Lambert, Isaiah Martin, Jayme Leagh Franklin, Isabel Brown, Chloe Trapanotto and Nikita Chirkov.
You never know what people are doing in their homes: Each week I try to find a post that is both very viral and sure to upset Jill Lubochinski, our head of creator partnerships and content at Washington Post Creator. Normally it’s animal related, but my entry this week is an aru-gala.
What I’m watching: World Cup tourists, a crazy creator scam, Eli Rallo’s wedding videos, and all things Knicks in 5, particularly if it involved Jordyn Woods (and her lucky bag) and Kylie Jenner or Taylor Swift.
Got a creator story? Drop us a line by replying to this email, or follow me at @dylanewells. If this email was forwarded to you, click here to subscribe.
