In a statement to the Times, Majority Forward said that its proposition was compliant with all disclosure requirements necessary under F.E.C. rules. That’s nice.

Former Democratic Party California Representative Katie Porter paid 12 influencers a total of $139,500 in her campaign to win the primary for California Governor. One was a “lifestyle creator” named Avery Cyrus who has 9.5 million followers on TikTok. (Excuse me while I cut my throat…) Cyrus received $25,000 for a single post claiming “Katie Porter’s thing works.”

Gee, I’m sure glad her thing works. The post was deleted after The Times inquired about it.

The social media agency that represents her, UnderCurrent Media, said that it “was not asked to oversee disclosure compliance, nor were we provided instructions concerning any required disclosures.” California law holds that paid political posts on social media must be disclosed, but the Times found three posts supporting Porter on TikTok from paid influencers that did not include disclosures, and in seven other instances, the disclosures could be found only after clicking through to a hidden section of TikTok for comments flagged “as potentially offensive or disturbing.”

Let me expand my earlier statement. The influencers who accept payments are unethical. The candidates who pay them are unethical. The social media platforms like Tik-Tok that host the bought and paid for endorsements are unethical. Everything about the practice is corrupt.

Tom Steyer, the Trump Deranged billionaire and unsuccessful candidate for governor of California, paid a particularly inexplicable influencer named Josh Greene $21,500 for his “support.” Greene, the Times tells us, is “a rising left-wing social media star with his own podcast, nearly 800,000 followers.” Why should his opinion on anything be persuasive? Ya got me! Among other things, Greene is a “ghost-hunter.”

Greene defends getting paid for endorsements, claiming that he accepts money only from candidates and campaigns that he would support anyway. But he says he supports consistent rules regarding disclosure. “If anything, we do need more clear transparency laws so that creators like myself aren’t confused,” he told the Times.

Right. What was confusing about that $21,500, Josh?

I’m opening my veins now. Give me a minute.

OK. I’m draining now…here’s the Times:

“There are no federal regulations requiring disclosure of payments for political support on social media, and only a few states have such rules. That allows influencers, in most instances, to endorse candidates for a fee without ever disclosing those payments in their posts. Creators say some campaigns have even asked them to actively conceal the fact that they’re being compensated, making it impossible to know what’s genuine support — and what is pay-for-play. In most cases, the only way a viewer would know an influencer is being paid would be to search a candidate’s campaign finance reports, as The New York Times did to discover the payments. Even then, such compensation is regularly obscured by funneling the payments through middlemen…Just four states have laws or regulations requiring influencers to disclose paid political messaging, but they apply only to state and local races, not federal contests. Although regulations for social media have been proposed multiple times to the F.E.C., it has never taken action.”

I’ve been contacted several times by organizations inquiring whether I would be interested in discussing endorsing candidates or political positions in exchange for payment. I didn’t bother to check what the laws were. I told them to get lost. It’s unethical.

This isn’t hard.