The New York Times reports that when so-called “social media influencers” declare their support for political candidates, they may may be getting paid to do it.

You know, like when Kamala Harris paid Oprah, Beyonce and Al Sharpton.

The Times says the practice falls “into a legal gray area.” Welcome to at least two substantive rationalizations on the Ethics Alarms Rationalizations List, #4. Marion Barry’s Misdirection, or “If it isn’t illegal, it’s ethical,” and #5. The Compliance Dodge!

But neither rationalization that tries toweasel out of the obvious should be necessary, should they? When someone online, on video or on the web says they support a candidate, a policy or a political position, they are announcing that their support is genuine and not bought and paid for. It doesn’t matter whether it’s illegal to misrepresent the reason for the endorsement or the opinion, or to let audiences think that it is based on genuine belief or analysis without disclosing that it is really based on money. It’s dishonest. It’s misleading. It’s deceptive.

It is unethical.

And any candidate, PAC, organization or political party that pays for such fake support is cheating whether there is a law against doing so or not. This isn’t hard.

Since its favorite party is the main perp in this corrupt practice, the Times pronounces it bi-partisan. Yeah, some Republican scumbags do it too, but I mentioned the magic word “cheating,” so naturally the paid “influencer” scam is especially popular with the Cheating Party, Democrats.

Kendall Boyle is a TikToker in Michigan with over 21,000 followers. She told the Times she was contacted by a social media marketing agency called Activate HQ offering her a paid opportunity to post videos about “how rising costs are affecting Michigan residents in real life.” She was told that the source of the payments would be Majority Forward, a group linked to the Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic super PAC. Activate HQ explained that “disclosure is not required and the paid partnership label will not be included in any posts.” A condition of the deal would be that Majority Forward “will not be mentioned” in her content.

Boyle declined, telling the Times that “It was one of those things where something isn’t fitting right.” Ya think? Gee, what a well-honed set of ethics alarms she has!