The arrangement has become a point of open conflict among campaigns. Accusations over who is paying which creators — and whether those payments are being disclosed — have surfaced publicly, exposing a gap in the rules that govern political advertising. Traditional campaign ads require disclosure of who paid for them. Influencer posts, in many cases, do not.

The Federal Election Commission has issued guidance requiring paid endorsements to be labeled, and the Federal Trade Commission has its own disclosure rules for sponsored content. But enforcement has been inconsistent, and California's Fair Political Practices Commission has not announced any active inquiry into influencer spending in the current race.

What this means in practice: a candidate's campaign can wire money to a creator with millions of followers, that creator can post favorable content, and a viewer has no reliable way to know the post was purchased. The volume of spending involved — described by the Standard as a flood of campaign cash into the social media market — makes the gap harder to ignore as the 2026 primary approaches.

None of the campaigns contacted for the Standard's story disputed that influencer spending is happening. The fight is over who is doing it and whether rivals are hiding it.

The FPPC has not set a public comment deadline or rulemaking schedule on influencer disclosure as of this writing. Advocates pushing for stronger rules have pointed to the 2026 primary calendar as the relevant pressure point — if new guidance isn't in place before the race heats up, it won't be in place at all.

Watch for: any FPPC agenda item on digital advertising disclosure, and whether legislative proposals on the topic surface before the January 2025 bill introduction deadline.