It’s just a bill
Friday, Sep 25, 2026 - Posted by Isabel Miller
* WGN…
Social media influencers are becoming major players in the political space.
The Chicago Teachers Union admits to targeting billionaire donor Michael Sacks with paid posts. Governor JB Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson are among the growing list of politicians using influencers to get their message out in their respective re-election campaigns.
It’s a brave new world, raising questions about whether the influencers are speaking for themselves or being paid to spread campaign talking points. There’s currently no laws requiring the people posting to disclose whether or not they’re being compensated.
An Illinois lawmaker, Democratic State Rep. Curtis Tarver, is working on legislation dealing with campaigning on social media. Tarver talked to WGN Political Editor Tahman Bradley about it on Thursday’s episode of The Point.
* From the interview…
Bradley: Content creators and videos in political campaigns is not new, but it’s getting a lot of attention. What are the problems that you see, and, and what do you think lawmakers should do?
Rep. Tarver: I think the problem is that the public is unaware, oftentimes, that what they’re being presented with is paid for. It’s a perspective that is being pushed upon them by someone who’s being paid to do it, and they’re unaware of that. And I think that’s what we need to correct and solve for. […]
Bradley: Would this be on the screen, or would it be verbal?
Tarver: It should be on the screen and/or verbal. I think that is something that we can we can certainly work out, but it should be something that notifies the public that they’re being paid. That’s the most important thing.
Bradley: And would your plan be to hold the campaigns responsible to making sure that their influencers are following the rules, disclosing the way that campaigns have to disclose their political activity?
Tarver: I think it’s both. I think you hold them joint and severally liable, quite honestly. I think there’s a legal thing here as well, because the campaign knows they’re paying the influencer for the purpose of influencing individuals, and the influencer knows they’re being paid to do so, so I think both of them should disclose. The campaign maybe disclose on a quarterly basis, or something along those lines, or weekly where- whereas the influencer is in real time. So both of them should be obligated to do so.
Bradley: Have you filed the bill, and have you talked to Governor Pritzker? I mean, he’s using influencers after all.
Tarver: I’ve not had a conversation with him specifically, but this is not directed at one individual, right? It could be if it were me, I’d be held to the same standard. So I’ve not talked to him. I do have language filed with LRB, and I’m looking to push this bill in veto session. […]
Bradley: I wonder if your colleagues are going to want to do this because it’s there there’ll be new bureaucratic things they’ll have to do. There’ll be new enforcement. I people like, I think, now messaging this way because it goes unfiltered. It doesn’t have to go through journalists. Do you have enough support, in other words, to pass this?
Tarver: I feel pretty confident. I think that the key thing is it’s not about how we feel about what we want to do. It’s about protecting the public, right? And this is in the vein of transparency. I think we’ve been pretty keen on talking about transparency, and so I think this falls in that line.
Please pardon any transcription errors.
Thoughts?
- Chicago liberal progressive - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 9:15 am:
While Tarver never misses an opportunity to pop Chicago progressives, there should be disclosures on paid political social media posts. Paid posts are essentially advertisements and if a political campaign or organization is paying for them, it should be treated as such.
- Interested Bystander - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 9:56 am:
Ethics and campaign bills that focus on something that will actually make a difference rather than grandstanding (like subpoena power) are always worthwhile.
- Incandenza - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 9:59 am:
== Social media influencers are becoming major players in the political space. ==
And turns out the Pope is Catholic
- NIU Grad - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 10:00 am:
I just ignore any videos I see on social media where it’s a face of an influencer in the corner, with an “explainer” happening in the background of local/state politics. The problem is that these get spread around so easily, especially within the Chicago progressive community, with biased or non-cited information that voters then take on as facts.
- Amalia - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 10:01 am:
Politico and NYT articles about the use of influencers in campaigns is pretty distressing. it’s useful but it’s also the wild wild west of campaign coordination. managing staffers is one thing. managing influencers is a whole other crazy
- Archpundit - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 10:38 am:
I just remember being so careful about ads on my old blog and ensuring everyone knew I had received them, but nothing else and made no other promises or agreements and now it’s just the wild wild west. Ethically and we should make it legally, disclaimers should be attached–it gets hard with video and text posts that aren’t on a full site, but we’ve found ways to do it with regular advertising.
- 44 - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 10:48 am:
Love it, some common sense legislation!
- Frida's Boss - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 10:50 am:
You’ve gotta say when something is paid for by the campaign. This ad is approved by, paid for by, etc., if every other style of media has to do so, then content creators should too. They don’t get a free pass
- Frida's Boss - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 10:51 am:
Also, once they monetize their channel for the campaign, they’d better beware that everything they’ve ever done will now reflect their candidate. So political campaigns should make sure they know who they’re jumping into bed with.
- fs - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 11:05 am:
== == Social media influencers are becoming major players in the political space. ==
They’ve been a major influence in political discourse and campaigns for well over a decade. Influencers who are both domestic and foreign. Study after study has shown how social media has fed and fed off of political division. The horse left the barn and the toothpaste left the tube years ago, and we’re now trying figure out how to get it back in check…but sadly, especially with ai now, I’m not sure it’s possible.
- H Kapp-Klote - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 11:13 am:
This is a great conversation and I’m so glad that people are talking more about the ways that social media has an impact on Illinois politics.
I think one of the things that I haven’t seen a lot of people discuss with much nuance is that so often, the people accused of “getting paid” without transparency tend to be people who simply have relationships with a campaign and care about their policies. The real power that they have is based on the relationship with their audience, and often, there isn’t a paid relationship there — which is why it hasn’t been disclosed.
Would love to see more nuance around this, especially as more people organize creators who care about social justice issues.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 11:38 am:
Absolutely, 100% there should be legal disclosures and fines if a campaign or an influencer does not follow the laws. It is advertising. There is no good faith basis to say otherwise. These people receive money, talking points, and draft messages from a campaign, then post the campaign’s message on their platforms. It is in no way organic folks express their genuine thoughts on social media.
- Demoralized - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 12:03 pm:
I view this as more akin to an employee rather than advertising.
- H-W - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 12:31 pm:
For me personally, it is not a big deal, as long as candidates purchasing adds are required to publicly document their spending. From my perspective, if I see a celebrity endorsing a political candidate, I assume they do so because they support the candidate and the platform the candidate is running on. Whether or not the “ad” indicated they are getting paid is neither here nor there for me. I already know how I feel about the candidates, and the inferences of the ad are upon the what I think about the celebrity. Personally, anyone advocating for Trump is problematic, regardless of the funding.
Again, as long as the candidate is openly documenting where their funding is going and who is receiving the funding, I think that is sufficient.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 12:57 pm:
===more akin to an employee rather than advertising===
Still needs to be disclosed.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 1:00 pm:
===For me personally, it is not a big deal===
Well, that’s just your opinion, man.
I personally believe that this violates state disclosure laws. Somebody being paid to shill needs to disclose it.
- H-W - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 1:49 pm:
@ Rich
If state disclosure laws currently do prohibit this practice, I agree the law should be followed. Indeed, if a new law is created, I would have no problem with that law and actually support it. I always believe more information is always important for the citizenry. This is just not an area of policy where I would hang my hat.
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 1:50 pm:
==I think one of the things that I haven’t seen a lot of people discuss with much nuance is that so often, the people accused of “getting paid” without transparency tend to be people who simply have relationships with a campaign and care about their policies.==
I do not see much nuance when it comes to whether or not someone is getting paid to do/say something on behalf of a campaign. If they are getting paid, it needs to be disclosed by the person getting paid and by the campaign that is paying. If I post something to promote a candidate on a social media platform and someone paid me to do so, it sure looks like an “electioneering communication” as defined in the Illinois Campaign Disclosure laws. If no money changes hands but it is done at the request of or in concert with the campaign or candidate, it may qualify as a contribution and should be reported (if it is completely independent but worth over $3k individually or cumulatively, it may still need to be reported).
I’m definitely not an attorney, but I would sure be careful about disclosure here. Some of these influencers are stepping into a legal minefield as are candidates and campaigns that pay them. A clarification in the law would be very helpful.
- H-W - Friday, Sep 25, 26 @ 2:21 pm:
Actually Rich, after a short drive to the store, you are right. Transparency is a two-way street and requires all parties be held to that standard (transparency), lest the be no avenue for holding all parties accountable. My opinion is not relevant to the bigger issue of holding all parties accountable.
It must be beer time. I don’t know what I was thinking. Peace all.