There's a story unfolding in California right now that every creator and marketer needs to pay attention to, because it's not just about one billionaire running for governor. It's about where political campaigning is headed and what it means for the people doing the posting.

Tom Steyer, the environmental activist and billionaire who's poured nearly $200 million of his own money into the California governor's race, has been running what amounts to a large-scale paid influencer operation. Campaign finance filings show the campaign spent over $123,000 paying at least eight creators, and that's just through April 18. The real numbers go much higher. Texas-based Latino mega-influencer Carlos Eduardo Espina, who has over 14 million TikTok followers, reportedly received $400,000 from the campaign.

The Shade Room got $25,000. Foos Gone Wild, the LA-based meme account with 3.3 million Instagram followers, posted a chummy interview with Steyer and was later paid $50,000. The campaign was also paying a digital media agency, Group Project Digital, over $870,000 to recruit everyday creators to post daily videos, starting at $10 a video.

None of that is inherently wrong. Campaigns have always paid for media. The problem is what wasn't disclosed.

For traditional media, election cycles have long been a major revenue driver. But those dollars typically funded clearly labeled commercials—not on-air endorsements woven into news coverage. And there’s a difference.

But creators occupy a much different space. Many are simultaneously publishers, personalities, journalists, entertainers, and businesses. As political dollars increasingly flow into the creator economy, the lines between advertising, content, and influence become harder for audiences to distinguish.

Creators already have advertising infrastructure on platforms like YouTube, where political campaigns can buy ads through established systems. But on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Threads, most creator partnerships happen through direct sponsorships, agencies, and brand deals. Political influencer marketing is developing much faster than the standards and infrastructure surrounding it.

California actually has a law for this. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it in 2023 specifically to address the blurring lines between paid political content and organic creator posts. It requires influencers to clearly disclose when they've been paid by a political campaign. In theory, straightforward. In practice, the FPPC is already investigating at least one case: creator Isaiah Washington, known as @zaydante, who was paid $10,000 by Steyer's campaign. The Instagram version of his video included a paid partnership disclosure. The TikTok version, now deleted, did not.

That's the one that triggered the formal investigation. But it's far from the only case.

Two California creators, Kaitlin Hennessy and Beatrice Gomberg, spent weeks documenting what they describe as a coordinated influencer network. They noticed accounts with suspiciously thin post histories, all publishing pro-Steyer, anti-Xavier Becerra content around the same time. Some of the accounts weren't even based in California. When they posed as a fictional political campaign to reach out, many responded within minutes, confirming they were available for paid political work. Hennessy and Gomberg filed a formal FPPC complaint, then a second one as more evidence surfaced.

Dan Schnur, a political science professor and former FPPC chair, called it the Wild West. The agency can take years to resolve investigations, and the penalties, if any materialize, are minimal. The Steyer campaign responded by publishing a Substack post defending its approach, arguing that paying creators is standard modern campaigning and that all payments are publicly reported as required.

Steyer himself told a reporter he pays creators "for their time," not endorsements, and said he has no direct relationship with the creators involved.

One creator, Maggie Reed, added a disclosure to her post after learning the law required it, then deleted the content entirely. Her attorney filed a separate FPPC complaint arguing the campaign never told her she was legally required to disclose, and that the contract she signed included confidentiality requirements that actively obscured the arrangement. Attorney Nick Rowley put it plainly in the filing: "You cannot pay influencers, fail to inform them of disclosure obligations, require silence about the payment, and then accuse the very creator you failed to inform of wrongdoing."

Not every creator in this situation was acting in bad faith. Some genuinely didn't know what the rules were. Others weren't even from California and may have had no frame of reference for state political disclosure law. The campaign processed payments through an agency under "Digital Advertising" in its expense reports, not in a way that made the creator-specific transactions obvious.

This brings up a whole new form of marketing and disclosures needed in even casual engagement.

For traditional media, election cycles have long been a major revenue driver. But those dollars typically funded clearly labeled commercials—not on-air endorsements woven into news coverage. And there’s a difference.

I recently asked on Threads whether influencers, as part of the new media ecosystem, should participate in the political advertising economy the same way traditional media companies have for decades. That’s a much bigger conversation than this single race.

Meanwhile, Steyer's campaign turned around and filed its own complaint against the Becerra campaign, alleging it had also used paid influencers. The race to muddy the waters is very much on.

What this whole situation reveals is something the creator economy has been building toward for years. There's now a genuine infrastructure for political campaigns to behave exactly like brands, using paid media seeded through creators to look like organic conversation. The same playbook that consumer brands use to sell products is being used to sell candidates. Naver to Use Nvidia’s AI Models in Bid to Cement Lead in Korea

The question is what standards, disclosures, education, and protections need to exist as creators become a larger part of the political media ecosystem.

If you're in LA on June 11, come learn and build with us.

I'm co-hosting a hands-on Women & AI Workshop, an event where you actually bring your laptop and we make something together, not just sit and listen to a panel. The first session is all about building with Claude and Claude Code. We'll walk through how to setup step by step, get into the features that actually move the needle, and show you how to automate the busywork eating your week. You leave with real tools you can use the next morning, not a notebook full of theory.

I'll be there alongside Tal Navarro of Social Lady, plus Lana Hout and Aisha Corpas Wynn of The AI Chicks, the Webby-honored, AP-featured team behind the first AI podcast co-hosted by women. Plus, Product.ai is hosting us in their space, including yummy snacks and drinks.l

📍 Los Angeles | 🗓️ Thursday, June 11, 6:00–9:00 PM PT | 🎟️ Request your seat here

Monday, June 22nd, 12-2 p.m. I'll be at the Women in AI Lunch at Cannes Lions— a gathering of some of the most interesting women working at the intersection of AI and media right now. If that's you, come through.

Wednesday, June 24, I'm hosting an exclusive lunch with Later and fellow creator entrepreneur Dhar Mann, including brand executives or top creators— more details at the link.

Drop me a note if you're coming. See you there!

Other headlines to check out:

Remember, I'm Bullish on you! With gratitude,