In the lead-up to the 2024 Texas gubernatorial election, new state rules requiring disclosure of paid political advertisements on social media are being tested amid questions about their effectiveness and scope. Texas, along with California, is one of only two states mandating that paid digital political content carry disclaimers, but enforcement and interpretation remain unsettled as campaigns deploy sophisticated online strategies.
Democratic nominee Gina Hinojosa’s campaign has paid a third-party marketing firm, Politiclip, $150,000 for social media services described in campaign finance filings as "news clipping." Politiclip recruits a network of content creators who post material supporting Hinojosa or criticizing the incumbent Republican governor, Greg Abbott. Internal data reviewed by journalists show Politiclip approved over 550 posts through early October. Creators working with Politiclip received compensation based on view counts, reportedly around $3 per 1,000 views.
While some posts funded through Politiclip include required paid partnership disclosures when used in other states, many of the posts supporting Hinojosa on Texas social media platforms lack such disclaimers. Hinojosa’s campaign defends this by citing a provision in the Texas rule that requires disclosures only on content "authorized by a candidate, an agent of a candidate or a political committee." Campaign officials say Politiclip acted independently and without the campaign’s direct approval on specific posts, arguing this exempts the posts from disclaimer rules.
Legal experts disagree with that interpretation, cautioning that the state’s ethics regulations are intended to ensure transparency regardless of whether a campaign directly approves each post. Penalties for violating the disclosure provisions can reach $4,000 per infraction, though the Texas Ethics Commission has not clarified enforcement procedures. Some analysts warn that campaigns leveraging outside consultants to manage social media content could create significant loopholes in transparency.
California’s political campaigns offer a contrasting example. Politiclip’s work for Los Angeles mayoral candidate Nithya Raman has included disclosed paid posts in compliance with that state’s requirements. Similarly, a Michigan super PAC supporting then-Democratic Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed used Politiclip to recruit creators who also included voluntary disclaimers despite no federal mandate. This discrepancy highlights differing legal environments and varying adherence to disclosure norms.
On the Republican side, coordinated social media efforts promoting figures such as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Senate candidate, have also emerged. Multiple Instagram accounts have posted nearly identical content endorsing Paxton’s efforts to oppose certain real estate developments, using hashtags like "#ad" and "#sp" that suggest paid sponsorship. These accounts are linked to LLM/DCW Media, a company that offers paid content placement across thousands of Instagram pages. Paxton’s campaign denies involvement or payment for these posts.
Similar accounts supporting Governor Abbott have circulated content promoting his positions, though Abbott’s campaign filings do not indicate direct payments for social media advertising. Attempts to reach associated companies for comment were unsuccessful, and the Texas Ethics Commission has not responded to inquiries about these practices.
As social media becomes an increasingly vital battleground in Texas’s competitive 2024 elections, the effectiveness and enforcement of political ad disclosure rules on digital platforms remain under scrutiny. Campaigns are exploring new methods of paid messaging that challenge existing transparency laws, raising questions about whether current regulations sufficiently address the evolving nature of online political advertising.