Julia Chirkova
As California grapples with a groundbreaking proposal to levy a special tax on its wealthiest residents, a burgeoning army of social media influencers, spanning diverse demographics from culinary enthusiasts to retired seniors, is increasingly lending their voices – and their platforms – to sway public opinion. This phenomenon marks a significant shift in political campaigning, as campaigns strategically partner with and compensate content creators, recognizing their potent ability to resonate with voters more effectively than traditional advertising. The focal point of this intense digital engagement is Proposition 40, a proposed one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California’s approximately 200 billionaires, alongside related ballot measures designed to counter its implementation.
The evolving landscape of political persuasion in the Golden State highlights a growing reliance on individuals who have cultivated substantial online followings. These influencers, once primarily associated with lifestyle, entertainment, or niche interests, are now becoming key players in shaping electoral outcomes. Their ability to present complex political issues in accessible, relatable formats, often through personal anecdotes and direct appeals to their audiences, grants them a unique influence that traditional political ads struggle to replicate. This dynamic is particularly pronounced among younger demographics, who increasingly turn to social media for news and information, often bypassing established media outlets.
The Rise of the Digital Political Advocate
The strategy of engaging social media influencers is not without its complexities and potential pitfalls. Consider the case of Bartley Chavez, a mother and content creator with over 47,500 followers. Alongside her typical posts featuring family-friendly outings and budget tips, Chavez shared a video opposing Proposition 40. In her October reel, she articulated her concerns, stating, "Look, I’m all for trying new things. A new recipe? Sure. A crazy haircut? Go for it. A quirky movie with the kids. Why not? But when we’re talking about California jobs, our family’s financial future, and the state’s economy, that’s not something I want to experiment with." The accompanying caption explicitly disclosed that the campaign opposing Proposition 40 compensated her for the post.
Chavez’s foray into political advocacy, while transparent about its sponsorship, also illustrates the inherent risks. The comment section of her video revealed a mixed reaction, with some followers unfollowing her account and labeling her a "sell-out," while others expressed support for her stance. This illustrates the tightrope influencers walk when engaging in politically charged content, balancing their personal beliefs, financial incentives, and the potential backlash from their audience. Chavez did not respond to a request for comment regarding the impact of these reactions.
In contrast, Los Angeles-based author and political influencer Leigh McGowan, who commands an audience of over 3.5 million followers across various platforms, has positioned herself as a staunch advocate for Proposition 40. Known for her direct and no-nonsense political commentary, McGowan was already a proponent of the wealth tax when the Proposition 40 campaign began compensating her for some of her posts. In a sponsored Instagram video, she asserted, "No one is punishing the rich. They are doing just fine. We are simply asking them to pay an outstanding one-time tax that’ll help the rest of us."
McGowan attributes the growing importance of influencers in political discourse to a widespread distrust of traditional media and a desire for relatable voices to dissect intricate policy matters. "We don’t know who to believe anymore, and there are just so many lies out there," McGowan stated in an interview. "The people who take the time to say authentically this is what they believe in, that’s who people believe." This sentiment underscores a broader trend where authenticity, or the perception of it, plays a crucial role in building trust and influencing opinions in the digital age.
The Financial Muscle Behind Digital Campaigns
The financial stakes in California’s political arena are exceptionally high. Projections from the political advertising intelligence firm AdImpact indicate that political ad spending in the 2026 election cycle is expected to approach $1 billion, making California the most expensive state for political advertising. A significant portion of this, approximately $114 million, is earmarked for digital platforms such as Facebook, Google, Snapchat, and X.
The campaign opposing Proposition 40, bolstered by substantial financial backing, is leveraging this digital advertising landscape. Billionaires like Google co-founder Sergey Brin have contributed millions to Building a Better California, a coalition actively funding advertisements against the wealth tax proposal. This opposition coalition has amassed over $350 million to fight the billionaire tax and simultaneously support Propositions 41 and 42, which are designed to potentially nullify or circumvent Proposition 40.
While campaign finance reports meticulously detail expenditures on digital media, they often lack granular data on the specific amounts allocated to influencer marketing. Nevertheless, campaign leaders and industry experts concur that social media personalities are playing an increasingly pivotal role in the advertising strategies of both brands and political movements. Evan Westrup, a spokesperson for the coalition opposing Proposition 40, articulated this strategic imperative: "Any modern campaign that wants to win needs to be active in spaces where voters get information—and that’s exactly what the No on 40 coalition is doing."
The Spectrum of Influencer Engagement
The engagement of influencers in political campaigns exists on a spectrum. Some political influencers share their views independently or engage with campaigns without direct financial compensation, driven by genuine conviction. Others, however, receive payment ranging from a few hundred dollars to as much as $30,000 per post, according to an October report by the Center for Democracy & Technology and the Communication Technology Research Lab at the University of Pittsburgh. This report, titled "Paid to Post: Mapping the Political Influencer Industry," sheds light on the burgeoning professionalization of political influence online.
Crucially, the report also posits that while financial incentives are a driving factor, "genuine belief in political issues or candidates can—and often does—coexist with compensation." This suggests that the act of being paid does not necessarily negate the sincerity of an influencer’s beliefs.
Navigating the Ethical Landscape and Disclosure Requirements
The ethical considerations surrounding paid political endorsements by influencers are significant. One prominent Los Angeles influencer, known online as "The Speech Prof" and boasting over 1.7 million combined followers on Instagram and TikTok, claims to have refused payment to oppose the billionaire tax. Professor Chesko, as he is also known, covers a wide array of topics, from parenting and misogyny to politics. In September, he posted a viral video detailing his rejection of a substantial financial offer to speak out against the billionaire tax.
More recently, Professor Chesko posted a video endorsing the billionaire tax, disclosing that the Proposition 40 campaign compensated him for the content. He explained his decision, stating, "It’s not nearly as much, but they’re a healthcare union and not corporate oligarchs. Plus I already said where I stand for free." This nuanced approach highlights how influencers might weigh the source of funding and their existing alignment with an organization’s broader mission. Professor Chesko also did not respond to a request for comment.
The proliferation of these new voices entering the political discourse, delivered directly into personalized social media feeds, raises concerns about potential voter confusion. Ramesh Srinivasan, a professor of information studies at UCLA, observed, "If I’m seeing a completely different reality than you, whether it’s through influencers, AI or social media microtargeting, then it’s impossible to have a common basis for making decisions or choices." This statement points to the broader challenge of information fragmentation and the potential for deeply personalized, and sometimes contradictory, information environments to impede collective decision-making.
Campaign Strategies and Counter-Strategies
Despite being significantly outspent by the opposition, proponents of Proposition 40 assert their success in the social media sphere. Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff for the SEIU-UHW, a healthcare union backing the billionaire tax, stated, "Despite being heavily outspent, the Prop. 40 campaign has been beating the billionaires on social media content and impact." She further noted that many influencers support the tax even without compensation, driven by an understanding that "California needs functioning hospitals and emergency rooms, not more tax breaks for billionaires."
Some sponsored influencers aligned with campaigns opposing Proposition 40 have adopted a strategy of indirect messaging. Rather than directly criticizing the wealth tax, they focus on promoting ballot measures that could potentially nullify Proposition 40, even if voters approve it. Proposition 42, for instance, aims to prohibit new taxes on "retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings," creating a direct conflict with the proposed billionaire tax. In California’s system, if both propositions receive majority "yes" votes, the one with more votes generally prevails.
Karen Clay-Fenderson, a Los Angeles mother and retired teacher with over 120,000 Instagram followers, has posted videos discussing Proposition 42. In an interview, she explained her position: "I did my research on 42, and I did see something about the billionaire tax. But I want to keep my retirement and my life savings. I don’t want that taxed." Clay-Fenderson disclosed that the Proposition 42 campaign paid her for these videos, but she emphasized her cautious approach to advocacy. "They understand that we have influence, and people listen to what we have to say," she said. "That’s why I’m very cautious. This is what I’m doing, but you need to make your choice." This demonstrates a conscious effort by some influencers to maintain a degree of autonomy and encourage critical thinking among their followers.
Regulatory Framework and Platform Policies
In California, a critical element of influencer marketing in politics is disclosure. Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation in September that imposes penalties on influencers who fail to disclose when they are paid to post political content, with fines potentially reaching up to $5,000 per post. This regulatory measure aims to enhance transparency and prevent deceptive practices.
Social media platforms themselves have varying policies regarding political advertising. Instagram permits paid political ads, while TikTok generally prohibits them. However, the enforcement of TikTok’s policy has been a subject of concern, as highlighted by investigations into partisan influencers and dark money evading ad policies.
Nathan Click, a spokesperson for Proposition 42, affirmed that their partner creators are adhering to disclosure requirements and all campaign laws. "Creators play an important role in the political conversation," Click stated. "And campaigns across the country partner with them to ensure their audiences understand what’s at stake in the election." This underscores the industry’s acknowledgment of influencers as legitimate and valuable components of modern political communication strategies.
The increasing integration of social media influencers into political campaigns signifies a fundamental evolution in how political messages are crafted and disseminated. As Proposition 40 and its related measures progress, the role of these digital voices will undoubtedly remain a central, and closely watched, aspect of California’s electoral landscape, raising ongoing questions about transparency, influence, and the future of political persuasion.
