Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign has come under fire for its aggressive “pay-to-play” internet efforts — misleading millions of Americans to promote her message.
New revelations from multiple sources have shed light on the Democratic presidential campaign’s controversial tactics, raising questions about honesty in political advertising in the digital age.
Over the last week, several online influencers have come forward with claims that the Harris campaign has approached them with offers of payment in exchange for positive content — without having to disclose their efforts.
Lauren Mochen, a social media personality, recently disclosed that the campaign attempted to buy favorable posts from her social media feed about Harris and the Democrats. Mochen claims that she was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) before proceeding, a move that would have prevented her from discussing that she’d been paid to her viewers.
“I know a lot of people get their views, and their opinions, and their beliefs based off of what their favorite influencers are saying,” Mochen stated. “Just know that they might have been paid to say the things they’re saying.”
The growing scandal extends beyond social media influencers.
Reports have emerged that the Harris campaign has been manipulating mainstream news headlines in Google search results to cast the Vice President in a more favorable light — or former President Donald Trump in a negative one.
These altered headlines, while quietly labeled as “sponsored,” use the branding of mainstream media news outlets without their knowledge or consent. Nearly a dozen publishers, including major organizations like The Guardian, Reuters, CNN, PBS, NPR, The Independent, and CBS News have been affected by this practice.
The Harris campaign even manipulated the headline of WDAY Radio’s article, a small North Dakota radio station.
Take a look —
A spokesperson for The Guardian blasted the practice.
“While we understand why an organization might wish to align itself with the Guardian’s trusted brand, we need to ensure it is being used appropriately and with our permission,” the spokesman said.
The scale and methods employed by the Harris campaign through social media and search engines have raised significant eyebrows — and the financial implications of these partnerships are significant.
One influencer claimed that a video with significant reach can command fees between $3,000 and $10,000. Organizations like Future Forward, a Super PAC supporting Harris, have held events to teach influencers how to harness algorithms and promote “social justice” causes.
Notably, the Federal Election Commission voted in December 2023 against imposing disclosure requirements on influencers paid to spread political messages, a decision that differs from regulations in commercial advertising.
This regulatory environment has allowed campaigns to operate with less transparency in their social media strategies.
While the Harris campaign’s tactics have drawn criticism, they are the next step in a broader trend in political campaigning. Both major parties are increasingly turning to influencers to reach younger voters. Turning Point USA, a conservative organization, has reportedly raised nearly $200 million since 2020 to support their causes, some of which include influencer engagement.
As the controversy unfolds, the Harris campaign faces growing pressure to address these allegations of undisclosed political advertising.
The use of NDAs and the manipulation of news headlines have particularly alarmed critics, who argue that such practices undermine the integrity of political discourse.