What the Chorus Creator Controversy Really Teaches Us

From “dark money” to creator contracts: why transparency (and trust) are on the line

Author

Shira Lazar
September 01, 2025

Before we dive in, I’ve known Taylor Lorenz for years, as well as many of the creators who were involved in this program. For context, I wasn’t invited to participate myself, but I’ve followed the conversations closely — and as many of you know, I’ve been covering digital and creator culture (while also working in it) for over 15 years.

This week, WIRED published a now widely discussed article by longtime creator and digital culture journalist Taylor Lorenz: Chorus, a nonprofit incubator that describes itself as nonpartisan, offered influencers up to $8,000 a month to join its program. In its fundraising materials, however, Chorus positions itself as supporting independent progressive voices online at scale. Chorus is also fiscally sponsored by the Sixteen Thirty Fund—often labeled “dark money” because, as a 501(c)(4), it isn’t required to disclose its donors. Being a fiscal sponsor doesn’t necessarily mean Sixteen Thirty was the original funder; more often, it means the Fund provides the legal umbrella, processes outside donations, and handles admin for projects that don’t yet have their own tax-exempt status.

Still, that structure makes it harder to trace exactly where the money originates, which is why questions of transparency surrounding the program are so charged.

The contracts reviewed in WIRED included restrictive terms— creators were not allowed to disclose their involvement without Chorus’s explicit approval, had to route all political outreach and bookings through Chorus, and faced limits on how they could use program funds. 

SIDE NOTE: Most contracts in this space are written to protect the company more than the creator, and almost all require approval before you can even discuss the partnership publicly. That doesn’t make them ideal — in fact, it underscores how much the power balance still tilts against creators. 

So on paper, it looked like creators were being muzzled. But many participants have since pushed back in public posts, saying that hasn’t been their experience at all since starting the program in July.

My Take

1. Contracts like this aren’t new, but they can be predatory.

Agreements that look restrictive, last-minute, or overly legalistic are everywhere in the creator economy. Brands, agencies, and nonprofits often hand creators contracts that feel scary on paper. And yes, many of us have signed them. Sometimes out of necessity (“I need the money”), sometimes because respected peers are also signing on, and sometimes out of the pressure that comes from being offered a take-it-or-leave-it deal.

That solidarity can make it feel safer—but it doesn’t mean the underlying dynamic is healthy. These contracts often reflect the imbalance of power between institutions and individual creators.

Many of the creators who actually joined Chorus now say that while the contract read restrictive, in practice, they still had freedom. They could post their own content, disclose participation publicly (the program itself was listed online along with cohort participants, though only a few creators mentioned their involvement on their own platforms), and reach out to political figures independently. Much of the questionable language was more like boilerplate legalese than rules that were actively enforced. As one creator in the program shared with me, the coverage made it sound like the whole program was “new and evil — and it wasn’t.”

Still, it’s not surprising some people saw it that way. In recent years, there have been examples of covert influence campaigns — including a 2024 federal indictment showing Russia’s state-backed RT funneled millions into Tenet Media, a U.S.-based network of right-wing influencers like Benny Johnson and Tim Pool. That cast a long shadow. So when people see the phrase “dark money” tied to creator partnerships, their minds immediately jump to manipulation — even when the reality might be less sinister. And to be clear, that doesn’t make it ok. We should hold creators on all political sides to the same standard.

Others have noted that any influence is still influence. You don’t need someone telling you what to say for it to shape your work. Sometimes just knowing who’s paying you — or wanting to keep the funding flowing — can subconsciously guide how you show up. It’s like the relationship between a journalist and their editor: the editor doesn’t need to bark orders for the writer to anticipate what will (or won’t) fly.

So yes, the contracts looked bad— but Chorus creators say that didn’t translate into being silenced. It does mean, however, there’s still progress to be made in how transparent and non-predatory these deals are— and how they’re understood by both creators and the public.

2. Transparency expectations have evolved.

The FTC may only require #sponsored on a single video or post, but communities clearly want more. They expect creators to disclose affiliations, funding sources, and programs—especially when politics and the news are involved. Just as John Oliver discloses HBO’s corporate ties, creators are now held to a similar standard of openness.

3. Ethical alignment matters.

Whether the Sixteen Thirty Fund was acting as fiscal sponsor or funder, creators still need to trace where money is coming from—and decide if it aligns with their values. In 2025, the question isn’t just “is this legal?”—it’s “does this reflect what I stand for?” Most of the creators in this space that I know are already highly self-aware and take these standards seriously. That’s what protects their credibility.

4. Don’t let stories like this discourage creator investment.

The worry from many is that stories like this could discourage funders from working with creators at all—especially on the left, where investment is already scarce. Although for others, the greater danger is the concern that their favorite creator might cross the line into being a paid mouthpiece rather than an independent voice.

But if every contract we’ve all signed were made public, a million bucks says most of them wouldn’t look flattering. Creators are often underpaid and asked to sign away rights. That’s the real systemic issue.

The answer isn’t less funding. It’s better funding: transparent, flexible partnerships that respect creators’ independence and don’t put them in no-win situations.

The Bigger Picture

The bigger issue here isn’t just contracts; it’s trust. Right now, you’ve got people debating Taylor’s reporting, questioning the creators involved, dragging Chorus, and everyone pointing fingers. That’s the mess that ensues when transparency— and the trust that depends on it— breaks down.

And heading into the next election cycle, those trust gaps matter more than ever. Whose voices do you trust? Where are you getting your information? These aren’t abstract questions — they’re shaping how people vote, organize, and engage. The Chorus story shows how much work still needs to be done when it comes to politics intersecting with the evolving creator world.

The lesson isn’t to shut down or avoid programs like Chorus. It’s to continue building trust between platforms, funders, creators, and their communities— so these conversations don’t feel like they’re happening in the shadows or behind closed doors, and don’t turn into a pile-on.

On another note…

I’ve spent years advocating for creator well-being, and right now we have a chance to take a huge step forward together.

I recently launched the largest creator mental health study in North America with my initiative, Creators 4 Mental Health, alongside Lupiani Insights & Strategies. Our goal is simple but urgent: to understand the real state of mental health in the creator economy and use that data to push for meaningful industry change.

We’re aiming to hear from at least 500 creators (we’re almost at the finish line!), and your voice matters in building a healthier, more supportive future for everyone in this space.

It only takes 10 minutes, and as a thank you, you’ll receive three free months of Opus Clip Pro. But the real value is knowing that by sharing your experiences, you’re contributing to a cultural shift that prioritizes our mental health as much as our output in the creator economy. The deadline is September 3rd!

This study is sponsored by Opus, Social Currant, and Statusphere. 

San Francisco Event on September 4

Creators 4 Mental Health is coming to SF! Bay Area creators and industry folks, this one’s for you. I’m co-hosting this event during INBOUND with Collective Voice and Bay Area Creator Economy.

When: Thursday, September 4, 4–6 PM.
What: A mixer + panel on mental health in the creator economy
RSVP NOW HERE

Other headlines to check out:

AI

Creator Economy

Web3 

🎧 New Episode of The AI Download:  Are We Raising AI Like Our Kids? With De Kai

In this episode, I sit down with De Kai — cognitive scientist, musician, and one of the minds behind Google Translate — to dive into his provocative idea that AIs are our “artificial children.” We explore what it means to be responsible parents in an era where algorithms are shaping culture, elections, and even our emotional lives.

De Kai argues that the real crisis isn’t technological but moral, and we unpack whether we can instill empathy, curiosity, and nuance into machines before they end up raising us. From the risks of AI as therapists to the future of leaner, smarter systems, this conversation is about how we build mindful technology and whether this generation will be the last chance we have to get it right.

🎙️ Listen now to get caught up on the AI headlines you need to know plus insights on future of creativity and culture and being human.

Gentle Reminder 🙏

“Success doesn’t come from what you do occasionally; it comes from what you do consistently.“

Advertise with Us

Remember, I'm Bullish on you!

With gratitude,