* My weekly newspaper column…

My associate Isabel Miller and I worked on a story last week about paid influencers in campaigns. We decided to look into it after reading news reports about how the Chicago Teachers Union has been using paid influencers in its battle to control the elected Chicago school board and Mayor Brandon Johnson is also using them in his own reelection campaign.

Trouble is, the union and Johnson have not been disclosing that those influencer videos touting candidates are actually paid advertisements.

If you’re online at all, you know about these influencers. They’re usually young and some have built large followings by providing entertaining and informative content on whatever social media outlets they post on.

For the most part, it’s legal conduct. But campaigns not disclosing influencers’ official campaign involvement appears to be illegal under current state law, which we will get to in a bit. And since the state statute doesn’t specifically mention “influencers,” some folks want to make extra special sure that they’re covered.

For example, Rep. Curtis Tarver, D-Chicago, hasn’t yet filed a bill, nor has he apparently found a vehicle bill for the upcoming fall veto session. As mentioned above, a new law might not even be strictly necessary and, whatever the case, the Legislature has not sent a single campaign reform package to the governor’s desk in years (a topic for another day). But Tarver said he plans to introduce legislation requiring social media influencers to disclose when they’re being paid to push political messages.

During an interview with WGN Political Editor Tahman Bradley late last month, Tarver said the disclosure about who or what is paying for the content could appear on screen or be spoken, and that both the campaign and the influencer should be held responsible if that disclaimer is missing.

Tarver said proposed language is with the Illinois Legislative Reference Bureau and that he hopes to move it during the fall veto session.

The Illinois Election Code already requires a political committee paying for communications directed at voters and mentioning a candidate to ensure its name “is identified clearly within the communication as the payor.”

State statute doesn’t mention influencers, but a political committee that pays someone to publish an online post is still responsible for ensuring the post identifies the committee as the payor, said Illinois State Board of Elections spokesperson Matt Dietrich.

“The onus is on the committee to include attribution on the video, or social media post, etc., of ‘Paid for by,’” Dietrich said. “Only the committee, not the influencer, is obligated to follow the rules of the Campaign Finance Act.”

That’s the crucial gap that Tarver wants to close.

“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,” Tarver said during the WGN segment. “The campaign may disclose on a quarterly basis, or something along those lines, or weekly whereas the influencer is in real time. So both of them should be obligated to do so.”

Currently, those payments must also be disclosed on the committee’s quarterly campaign finance report. The election code requires committees to list the “full name and mailing address” of anyone paid more than $150 in aggregate during the reporting period, along with the amount, date and purpose of the expenditure.

If a campaign uses a consultant to recruit and pay influencers, the report can’t always stop at the consultant. Once payments to the consultant reach $3,000 during the quarterly reporting period, existing state statute requires the committee to disclose how much went to each influencer, why they were paid and who benefited if the consultant was “only a conduit for payment to another.”

California and Texas already have requirements aimed specifically at paid political influencers.

California requires influencers to disclose when a political committee pays for a post. A new law signed this month will make the influencer and the committee jointly liable for civil or administrative penalties if the disclosure is missing. Texas requires social media users paid to post or repost political advertising to identify who paid for it.

Your thoughts on this?