Public Responsibility for Disclosure and Content Control in Paid Political Endorsements by Influencers

Abstract

Sincere belief and sponsorship labels are not enough to determine whether paid political endorsements are legitimate. Based on targeted literature retrieval and hypothetical comparison, this article disassembles remuneration, role presentation, content control, verification process, and factual results into five dimensions that can be evaluated separately, and examines the responsibilities of different communication arrangements. The core judgment of the article is that if the contract requires a supportive conclusion in advance, it is incompatible with the independent evaluation promised to the audience; there are only two ways out: cancel the restriction, or truthfully explain that this is commissioned advocacy. Public advocacy does not have to promise political neutrality, but the three responsibilities of truthfully explaining the relationship, reasonably verifying the facts, and correcting serious mistakes do not disappear. Disclosure is not enough to eliminate the misunderstanding in another situation: when multiple contents are presented together, the common organizational source may still be hidden. Responsibility is distributed among creators, sponsors, intermediaries, and platforms according to each party\'s knowledge, control, and participation. These analyses provide a normative justification for the conditional acceptance of paid advocacy, which is neither an empirical estimate of the effectiveness of communication nor a universally applicable permit.

Introduction

The text examines the ethical issues surrounding paid political endorsements by social media influencers and online creators. It explores how sponsorship, content control, transparency, and personal beliefs affect the relationship between creators and their audiences.

The article argues that receiving payment does not automatically make a political endorsement unethical, and sincere belief does not guarantee that the endorsement is independent. The key issue is whether creators retain the freedom to form judgments based on evidence or are contractually required to support a particular political position.

The study identifies three main research questions: the responsibilities of different parties involved in paid political communication, the benefits and limitations of sponsorship disclosure, and the distribution of ethical responsibilities among creators, sponsors, intermediaries, and platforms.

It uses a normative ethical analysis and hypothetical scenarios to examine different endorsement arrangements. The analysis distinguishes between financial compensation and sponsor control, emphasizing that creators who promise independent evaluations should disclose any contractual restrictions that influence their conclusions. In contrast, creators who openly communicate a campaign's position can receive compensation, provided they accurately explain their role and handle factual claims responsibly.

The article also explains that disclosure is necessary for transparency but cannot solve every ethical problem. Informing audiences about who paid for an endorsement helps them understand its context, but it does not necessarily reveal who controlled the message, how its conclusions were formed, or whether its claims were properly verified. Research on commercial sponsorship and professional advice suggests that disclosure can improve recognition of sponsored content, although its effects on trust, decision-making, and behavior vary.

Finally, the article emphasizes that creators should verify factual claims, acknowledge uncertainty, and correct significant errors. Sponsors should avoid misleading audiences about the independence of endorsements, while intermediaries and platforms should be considered according to their knowledge, control, and participation in coordinated communication.

Conclusion

The ethical boundaries of paid political endorsements depend on the communicator\'s role and whether the arrangement is compatible with it. The creator claims to provide independent evaluation, but the contract requires a supportive conclusion in advance - even if the remuneration has been disclosed and the support is in good faith, the conflict between roles and authority still exists. This incompatibility can be resolved only by canceling the restriction or disclosing the work as commissioned advocacy. Conflicts of interest should indicate how specific commitments are threatened by secondary interests, and cannot be presumed only by receiving remuneration. Disclosure should be at the appropriate time and in a clear way to explain the relationship information required to understand this endorsement. But it cannot replace a proper role description, fact-checking commensurate with the statement\'s risk, or correction after important errors are found. Normal advocacy should be separated from omissions that distort substantive facts; a creator\'s sincere support for a position should also be separated from whether multiple pieces of content are created independently. Responsibilities are assigned to creators, sponsors, intermediaries, and platforms according to the degree of knowledge, control, and participation. This article supports paid advocacy that meets these requirements; it does not grant blanket approval to all disclosed endorsements.

References

[1] M. J. Riedl, J. Lukito, and S. C. Woolley, “Political influencers on social media: An introduction,” Social Media + Society, vol. 9, no. 2, Art. no. 20563051231177938, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231177938 [2] E. Dubois and K. Dommett, “Reconceptualising political influencers: An alternative means of definition and analysis,” New Media & Society, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 5749–5767, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448251395272 [3] G. De Gregorio and C. Goanta, “The influencer republic: Monetizing political speech on social media,” German Law Journal, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 204–225, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2022.15 [4] A. Goodwin, K. Joseff, M. J. Riedl, J. Lukito, and S. Woolley, “Political relational influencers: The mobilization of social media influencers in the political arena,” International Journal of Communication, vol. 17, pp. 1613–1633, 2023. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/18987 [5] M. J. Riedl and S. Woolley, “Political influencer ethics,” in The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Cyberpsychology, C. Fullwood, D. Branley-Bell, L. J. Orchard, M. Limniou, and V. Stefanova, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2026, pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52643-5_301-1. [6] N. S. Borchers, H. Reinikainen, M. Mucundorfeanu, and D. C. Balaban, “Wanted: social media campaign support! A principal-agent study on the management of influencer collaborations by political parties in three EU countries,” Journal of Communication Management, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 56–70, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-01-2025-0030 [7] M. L. Wellman, R. Stoldt, M. Tully, and B. Ekdale, “Ethics of authenticity: Social media influencers and the production of sponsored content,” Journal of Media Ethics, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 68–82, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2020.1736078 [8] N. Grguri? ?op, B. Culiberg, and I. First Komen, “Exploring social media influencers’ moral dilemmas through role theory,” Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 40, nos. 1–2, pp. 1–22, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2023.2241468 [9] S. J. A. Ward, Ethics and the Media: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511977800 [10] Institute of Medicine, “Principles for identifying and assessing conflicts of interest,” in Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, B. Lo and M. J. Field, Eds. Washington, DC, USA: The National Academies Press, 2009, ch. 2, pp. 44–61. https://doi.org/10.17226/12598 [11] M. J. Riedl, B. D. Horne, M. J. A. Craig, M. R. Kotowski, and C. A. Luther, “Antecedents of disclosure: What transparency measures social media users in the United States want from paid political influencers,” Social Media + Society, vol. 12, no. 3, Art. no. 20563051261480944, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051261480944 [12] M. Eisend, E. A. van Reijmersdal, S. C. Boerman, and F. Tarrahi, “A meta-analysis of the effects of disclosing sponsored content,” Journal of Advertising, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 344–366, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2020.1765909 [13] S. C. Boerman, “The effects of the standardized Instagram disclosure for micro- and meso-influencers,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 103, pp. 199–207, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.015 [14] D. M. Cain, G. Loewenstein, and D. A. Moore, “The dirt on coming clean: Perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest,” The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 1–25, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1086/426699 [15] S. Sah and G. Loewenstein, “Nothing to declare: Mandatory and voluntary disclosure leads advisors to avoid conflicts of interest,” Psychological Science, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 575–584, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613511824 [16] S. Sah, “The paradox of disclosure: Shifting policies from revealing to resolving conflicts of interest,” Behavioural Public Policy, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2023.37 [17] F. B. Keller, D. Schoch, S. Stier, and J. H. Yang, “Political astroturfing on Twitter: How to coordinate a disinformation campaign,” Political Communication, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 256–280, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1661888 [18] T. Annabell, L. Aade, and C. Goanta, “(Un)disclosed brand partnerships: How platform policies and interfaces shape commercial content for influencers,” Internet Policy Review, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1–32, 2024. https://doi.org/10.14763/2024.4.1814 [19] TikTok, “Politics, governments, and elections,” TikTok Advertising Policies, updated Jul. 2026. Accessed: Oct. 18, 2026. https://ads.tiktok.com/resources/help/article/tiktok-ads-policy-politics-government-and-elections

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Huijun Yang, Mohd Haizra Hashim. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.