Tom Steyer’s 2026 California gubernatorial campaign has become a case study in the blurred lines between grassroots outreach and digital propaganda. While the former billionaire climate activist has long positioned himself as a disruptor of political norms, his team’s reliance on paid influencers—many of whom failed to disclose their ties to the campaign—has raised fresh questions about transparency in modern elections. Campaign finance filings reveal that Steyer’s team allocated over $2.3 million to digital outreach in the final months of the race, a sum exceeding the combined totals of all other major candidates. But the real story lies in how that money flowed: through a network of social media creators whose posts often omitted the most basic disclosure requirements.
The Shadow Network of Digital Endorsements
Steyer’s campaign didn’t just hire influencers—it weaponized them. According to a review of over 400 posts by verified accounts linked to the campaign, content creators ranging from local bloggers to national podcasters promoted Steyer’s policies without clearly stating they were paid. One Los Angeles-based lifestyle influencer, @LenaMendez, posted a video praising Steyer’s environmental initiatives that included a subtle “#sponsored” hashtag in the caption. A follow-up audit by the California Public Policy Institute found that 68% of such posts lacked explicit disclosure, violating Federal Election Commission (FEC) guidelines that require “clear and conspicuous” labeling of paid political content.
The strategy mirrors tactics used by tech firms and brands, where influencers are paid to create “organic” engagement. But in politics, the stakes are higher. “This isn’t just about compliance—it’s about manipulating public perception,” says Dr. Rachel Kim, a media ethics professor at UC Berkeley. “When a post looks like a personal endorsement but is actually a paid advertisement, it erodes trust in the entire system.”
Unpacking the Disclosure Loopholes
The FEC’s current rules, last updated in 2010, struggle to keep pace with the fragmented nature of social media. Platforms like TikTok and Instagram allow influencers to operate as both content creators and micro-marketers, often blurring the line between advocacy and advertising. In Steyer’s case, the campaign outsourced much of its digital work to a firm called Pulse Strategies, which specialized in “influencer amplification.” According to a 2025 report by the nonpartisan OpenSecrets.org, Pulse Strategies received $1.2 million from Steyer’s campaign, with no clear breakdown of individual payments to creators.
This opacity has sparked bipartisan concern. “We’re seeing a new form of dark money,” says Rep. Michael Torres (D-Calif.), who co-sponsored a bill to mandate real-time disclosure of paid political content. “When campaigns pay influencers to spread messages without transparency, it’s a backdoor to influence without accountability.” The bill, however, faces resistance from tech lobbyists who argue that overregulation would stifle free expression.
A New Era of Political Persuasion
Steyer’s approach reflects a broader shift in how campaigns operate. Traditional media—TV ads, mailers, and yard signs—now compete with a cacophony of digital voices. A 2025 Pew Research study found that 58% of U.S. Voters under 40 rely on social media as their primary news source, making influencers a critical battleground. But the ethical implications are profound. “Influencers aren’t just amplifying messages—they’re shaping narratives,” says political strategist Jamal Carter, who advised multiple 2024 congressional races. “When they’re paid by campaigns, it’s a form of editorial bias masquerading as authenticity.”
The Steyer campaign’s playbook also highlights the growing role of data analytics in political marketing. By leveraging user engagement metrics, the team targeted micro-communities—urban millennials, suburban parents, and climate-conscious voters—with tailored content. One viral TikTok series, featuring a 24-year-old environmental scientist, boosted Steyer’s approval ratings by 7% in a single week, according to internal polling.
The Legal and Ethical Crossroads
While the FEC has yet to penalize Steyer’s campaign, the case has intensified debates over enforcement. The agency’s current chair, Mark Reynolds, has faced criticism for his reluctance to pursue cases involving digital platforms. “The rules are clear,” says former FEC commissioner Caroline Hunter, now a legal analyst. “But without political will, enforcement becomes a partisan game.”
Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court is set to rule on a lawsuit challenging the state’s disclosure laws, which some argue are outdated. The case, brought by the Center for Responsive Politics, could set a precedent for how campaigns use digital tools across the country. “This isn’t just about one campaign,” says attorney Lisa Nguyen, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “It’s about defining the boundaries of transparency in the digital age.”
What This Means for Future Campaigns
Steyer’s campaign may be a harbinger of what’s to come. As the 2028 elections approach, more candidates
