The Brief

Jaz Roche, also known to nearly 11,000 Tiktok followers as @spo0kymom, hawks facial cleansing bars, baby wagons and AI tools in short social media videos.

On a website where clients can pay her to post videos about their products, she says she’s based in Pennsylvania. Yet the content creator has taken an interest in the California governor’s race lately.

Tiktok and Instagram accounts linked to Roche have posted 34 times in the past 10 days to boost the campaign of billionaire Tom Steyer or to criticize his main Democratic opponent, Xavier Becerra.

“Hear me out, I have something to admit,” she says in the first video, posted May 8, on an account where she describes herself as a “so-cal girlypop.” “I did not expect the most progressive governor candidate to be a billionaire. But look at the policies, you guys.”

What she didn’t say was that Steyer’s campaign is paying her to say it.

Steyer, who has poured nearly $200 million into the most expensive primary campaign in state history, is under scrutiny for using paid social media influencers to post favorable things about him.

Is that legal?

Gov. Gavin Newsom three years ago signed a law meant to bring transparency to the increasingly intertwined world of politics and content creators, enacting a law requiring influencers to be upfront in their posts about being paid by a political campaign. In one of the first tests of the law, regulators have opened an investigation into one of the Steyer influencer videos.

But experts and transparency advocates aren’t optimistic: The law was intentionally designed with no real penalties, and the agency responsible for enforcing it sometimes takes years to resolve investigations.

“This is where the ‘Wild West’ analogy becomes useful,” said Dan Schnur, a political science professor and former chair of the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission.

‘Inundate the internet’

Campaign finance filings from January through April 18 show Steyer has paid over $123,400 to at least eight influencers. The New York Times reported that includes $100,000 to Texas-based Latino mega-influencer Carlos Eduardo Espina, whose 14.3 million Tiktok followers are a coveted target for Democrats and who has endorsed Steyer.

The campaign is also paying over $870,000 to a digital media agency, Group Project Digital, that solicits creators to post daily videos about Steyer. The listing initially offered $10 per video; it was amended last week to offer $1,000 a month and now includes a sentence telling creators they need to disclose the payments.

The state investigation covers just one of the influencer videos, in which content creator Isaiah Washington (known as @zaydante) did not disclose that Steyer’s campaign paid him $10,000 for a now-deleted video. It was sparked by a complaint from a pair of political social media influencers who post frequently in support of Becerra. On Tuesday, they filed another complaint alleging numerous additional paid, undisclosed posts, including from accounts in other countries.

“What he’s done is inundate the Internet in every way, shape and form to try and create an echo chamber,” said Beatrice Gomberg, one of the complainants.

Among the accounts they’ve recently highlighted: @foosgonewild, which has posted memes, content about Southern California street culture and, on May 5, an interview with Steyer talking about his opposition to ICE. The account has 3.3 million followers on Instagram and 1 million on Tiktok.

The Tiktok video has no disclosures. On Instagram, at the bottom of the video description, the account notes it’s a partner with California-based social video firm Flighthouse. Neither the content creator nor Flighthouse responded to requests for comment. The Steyer campaign would not disclose how much it paid the firm.

Steyer has defended soliciting influencers, saying they deserve to be paid for their work.

Spokesperson Kevin Liao called Gomberg’s first complaint “baseless” and said the campaign specified in its contracts with all third-party content firms that they needed to include payment disclosures, satisfying the campaign’s legal obligations under the state transparency law. The campaign doesn’t review posts in advance, he said.

Asked why the campaign had paid some creators who don’t live in California, he said, “I don’t see why that’s an issue.”

“Content creators, wherever they’re based, have followers in California,” he said.

‘Politics is all content now’

The blowback reveals the rising power and profitability of content creators in politics. One in five Americans regularly gets news on TikTok, rising to more than two in five for those under age 30. With traditional television hemorrhaging viewership and Americans hooked on the infinite scroll, campaigns are increasingly chasing posts.

They regularly hold events to court paid and unpaid influencers and sit for video interviews, aided by a new crop of talent agencies and digital media firms that represent influencers and solicit their content.

The relationship has contributed to at least one politician’s downfall: After attending a creator meeting for then-gubernatorial hopeful Eric Swalwell last fall, political influencer Arielle Fodor (aka @mrs.frazzled) received a flurry of messages warning her to stay away from him. It prompted her to post videos discussing rumors of his sexual misconduct, she has said. He quit the race after reporters covered several allegations of harassment and assault.

“Politics is all content now,” said Alex Stack, a Democratic consultant and former communications staffer for Gov. Gavin Newsom. “Candidates need to be content creators and they need a little online army behind them to get traction.”

Roche’s videos about Steyer — some featuring her talking, some simply showing text praising Steyer over mundane videos of her life — have gotten no more than 1,100 views each. They’re posted on accounts with fewer than two dozen followers, a far cry from the millions of Californians Steyer’s TV ad spending blitz is reaching.

But they provide something critical for the billionaire candidate who’s funding his own campaign: the impression of grassroots support.

In a briefing memo for creators obtained by CalMatters, the campaign’s digital firm tells Tiktokers and Instagrammers that the “title of billionaire is his biggest sticking point,” and that the campaign wants to reach California women, Latinos and African Americans. The Sacramento Bee first reported on the memo.

Organic content?

Advertisers covet creators regardless of audience size for their ability to portray a product endorsement as an organic recommendation from a friend. Candidates courting voters are no different.

For example, an organization representing California lawyers is paying influencers to promote a ballot measure targeting Uber's responsibility for sexual assaults by its drivers. Matt Mahan’s campaign for governor has also paid influencers and meme accounts for content boosting him. Instagram users see disclosures on those videos’ descriptions.

In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, Karen Bass’ challenger Spencer Pratt is offering money on social media gig platforms to make videos featuring viral-friendly soundbites of him.

Serabeth Mullaney, a part-time San Francisco content creator promoting cat treats and AI tools, turned down an offer to make videos boosting Steyer’s campaign because of her opposition to billionaires in politics. The 29-year-old said she gets most of her news from social media so she’s concerned about the seep of paid political ads into influencer content.

“Anyone desperate to make that (money), they’re going to do the campaign,” she said. “Whether or not they believe in Tom Steyer, they’re going to post those videos.”

The concern mirrors the state Fair Political Practices Commission’s rationale for proposing the 2024 transparency law. Before that, campaigns only needed to disclose payment for ads they posted directly; paid content on third-party platforms was largely unregulated.

But the agency primarily relies on complaints to launch investigations, and violations of the law come with few consequences — no fines or criminal charges for creators or campaigns. The only thing the agency can do is ask a court to force an influencer to disclose payments, but experts say that's an expensive and time-consuming effort for a fleeting video.

Sen. Tom Umberg, a Santa Ana Democrat who authored the law, said paid influencers in politics are more prevalent than three years ago and lawmakers should make the requirements more enforceable.

“Transparency is like whack-a-mole,” Umberg said. “Every year there’s a new modality, and so there’s a new way to get around stuff.”

Becerra's online army

Now the gubernatorial candidates and their supporters are engaged in a mass scrutiny of all the posts boosting each others’ campaigns.

Critics have also questioned the relationship between Becerra and numerous creators who have boosted his campaign since Swalwell dropped out. The Becerra campaign has insisted it has never paid any content creator for a post.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra on April 1, 2026.

(

Larry Valenzuela

/

CalMatters

)

The campaign seeks relationships with creators who are willing to post for free as a blend of campaign volunteer and reporter, said digital strategist Alf Lamont.

“Paid influencer campaigns don’t carry the kind of punch that organizing does,” Lamont said. “We want to make sure we’re getting folks who truly believe in it so we don’t face the second-guesses and the ‘paid by’ and the feeling you’re looking at something that’s insincere.”

Jordan “Jay” Gonzalez’s posts included lifestyle content, Latino advocacy and even salmon DNA facials before he started creating pro-Becerra videos on multiple platforms in March, a month before the campaign hired him as a full-time social media strategist. Gonzalez has recently been amending his posts with disclosures that he is paid by the campaign, “out of extreme caution so as not to seem disingenuous to my audience.”

Opponents point out Gonzalez and another creator who has posted numerous times in Becerra’s favor, Maggie Reed or @mermaidmamamaggie, have previously charged for content. Antonio Villaraigosa’s campaign solicited unpaid videos from both of them in the spring, and received quotes from each influencer’s agent of $7,000 to $16,500, emails shared with CalMatters show. The Villaraigosa campaign confirmed the exchanges.

On Tuesday, Steyer’s campaign filed a complaint alleging both influencers’ videos were paid for by Becerra’s campaign with no disclosure.

Becerra’s campaign has not reported any payments to Reed in campaign finance filings, and Lamont denied paying either creator for content. Gonzalez, in an email, said that he had previously declined a paid offer from the Villaraigosa campaign. Reed did not respond to a request for comment.

‘A SoCal girl’

Gomberg and Kaitlyn Hennessy, friends who met at a Becerra rally, have both posted frequently in favor of his campaign — for free, they say.

The pair began sleuthing online in early May, eventually filing a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission last week alleging Steyer’s campaign hired Roche, Washington and several other content creators to post on his behalf without disclosing it.

Posing as another, unnamed campaign, they emailed creators offering paid political content work to prompt them to talk about posting for Steyer’s campaign.

One account, @isabel.speakss, purported to belong to a “so cal girl sharing her thoughts” named Isabel Mendoza and has exclusively posted about Steyer since May 9. The woman in the videos appears identical to Jade Johnson, a Florida-based influencer.

Another account, @jess.votes, is linked to another Florida content creator.

Since the complaint was filed, Roche and the other creators have included disclaimers in their posts. None of them responded to inquiries from CalMatters asking if they knew about the campaign disclosure law. After a CalMatters reporter asked Johnson whether she was asked to pose as a California voter, the @isabel.speakss account on Monday afternoon removed the “so cal” description from its profile.

None of those creators are listed in Steyer’s latest campaign finance filings as subcontractors of any digital strategy firm. Steyer spokesperson Liao said they will appear in the next filing.

CalMatters reached out to all the creators listed in the filings; none agreed to an interview. They include lifestyle influencers, comedians and musicians whom Steyer paid between $1,500 and $10,000, mostly through another firm, to post video interviews with Steyer or talk about his platform. One of them labeled her video a “paid partnership;” others did not disclose campaign payments or have since deleted their videos.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

The Los Angeles Unified School District is preparing for possible “Super El Niño” storms that could damage schools and lead to closures, the district announced in a media release Tuesday.

District staff are clearing drains, trimming trees and checking roofs, windows and doors. LAUSD is also testing emergency equipment, including pumps and emergency lighting systems, and stocking supplies such as flashlights and drinking water.

“Preparing for severe weather starts well before the first raindrop,” Superintendent Andrés Chait said in a statement. “We can’t control the weather, but we can take steps now to protect our students and employees and help our schools stay ready.”

The district will monitor weather patterns using information from the National Weather Service and local emergency officials, it said.

LAUSD encouraged families to update their contact information to ensure they receive district calls, texts and emails. Families should also monitor weather alerts, follow emergency officials’ instructions, avoid flooded roads and review safe routes to and from school, according to the release.

“Preparing for a storm is a shared effort — from the crews maintaining school buildings to the principals reviewing emergency plans and the families making sure they can receive critical updates,” LAUSD said in the release. “By taking these steps before the rain begins, Los Angeles Unified is working to help students and employees stay safe and keep school communities as prepared as possible for the winter ahead.”

Southern California is likely in for a solid dose of rain this week, just days after heat and Santa Ana winds helped fuel several wildfires across the region.

Forecasters expect the bulk of the rain to roll into the Los Angeles basin Wednesday night and continue into Thursday morning, with a small chance of thunderstorms and hail.

The San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley and coastal areas across L.A. and Orange counties could get around an inch over the next few days. Hills and mountains could get up to 3 inches.

“We could see some pretty high rain rates,” said National Weather Service meteorologist Mike Wofford. “It's a good storm for this time of year — it's a little stronger than what we would see normally.”

The possibility of significant rain in the mountains raises concerns about flooding in areas recently burned in wildfires, particularly around the Bryson Fire burn scar near Malibu, which is only a few days old. Burn scars can’t absorb heavy rainfall and are susceptible to landslides.

The National Weather Service has issued a flood watch for the Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding communities from Wednesday afternoon through Thursday. That means heavy rain there could flood streets, creeks and rivers. The flood watch area includes both the Bryson Fire and Palisades Fire burn scars.

This will also be the first nontropical storm of the season, meaning it’s moving into the region from the north. Most storms that hit Southern California follow a similar path, especially during the winter, unlike the tropical storms that formed off the coast of Mexico and brought muggy weather to the region this summer.

Nontropical storms also bring cold air to the region. On Wednesday and Thursday, forecasters expect highs in the 60s and 70s. High elevations will be even cooler.

The science research institute that would likely receive $4.2 billion in public taxpayer money if voters approve Proposition 38 this November had only three employees as of last month — far fewer than the 51 staffers it planned to have hired by last year.

Public statements and public records CalMatters obtained raise questions about how well prepared the institute is to shepherd so much money if the bond measure passes.

Prop. 38 would allocate up to $8.4 billion in bonds for scientific research on diseases and cures concerning the immune system, with an emphasis on finding treatments for Alzheimer’s, cancer and heart disease. The ballot language stipulates that a single, unnamed research institute would receive half the bond’s money to conduct research and partner with other researchers if it meets highly specific criteria. Bonds are a type of debt that must be repaid.

Previous reporting by CalMatters found only one institute in California currently meets those criteria: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The institute’s principal funder is billionaire Gary K. Michelson, who wrote Prop. 38 and is by far the largest donor to its political campaign.

Backers of the proposition said state bond money is needed to stabilize research funding after President Donald Trump repeatedly attempted to cut existing and future federal science grants.

The measure’s critics say Prop. 38 is well-intentioned but poorly designed because it overlooks the many established public and nonprofit university and hospital research labs in California. They also say California should not subsidize subsets of scientific research and instead should support research more broadly.

CalMatters obtained documents that included the five-year business plan of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The plan was part of the formal affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute, which the two parties signed in August 2024. Among other details, the agreement requires the institute to pay UCLA 7.5% of the net revenue of any drugs and technologies developed by the institute’s staff. The institute is one of the founding tenants at a UCLA-owned research park in West Los Angeles, where the institute is leasing 235,000 square feet of research space, the institute says.

Far fewer employees than plan called for

Between summer 2024 and summer 2025, the institute committed to hiring “approximately” 51 employees, including six executives, five “world-class” scientists who can lead research labs, and 40 other employees, such as data scientists, lab technicians, biologists and administrative personnel. Between 2025 and 2027, the institute would hire roughly 90 more workers, including 10 research lab leaders, according to the agreement.

But John Mazziotta, a senior UCLA official who also serves as a board member of the immunology institute, last month said the institute has hired just three employees: a chief operating officer, a general counsel, and a scientific advisor, and “they're well into the search” for a director. Mazziotta, the CEO of UCLA Health and vice chancellor for health sciences at UCLA, made his comments during the Sept. 16 UC Regents meeting.

The Yes on Prop. 38 campaign has repeatedly refused to comment on whether the bond was written specifically for the immunology institute. Claudia Briggs, a spokesperson for the campaign, told CalMatters in July that whichever nonprofit receives the $4.2 billion portion of the bond fund should be a sophisticated one that “is prepared to accelerate lifesaving research immediately while maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, accountability, and stewardship of public funds.”

At a September press conference, a Yes on Prop. 38 spokesperson appeared to confirm CalMatters’ findings that only one institute currently qualifies to be the one to receive half the bond money. “It is very likely that CIII, which is a research institute affiliated with UCLA, will qualify for half of the funds under the current criteria,” said Robin Swanson. CIII is the initialism for the immunology institute.

According to the five-year plan, the institute was supposed to spend $25 million on personnel between 2024-25 and 2025-26 and $45 million total on operating expenses in that time, including maintenance, utilities and rent. It was also supposed to spend an additional $167 million in that time on capital expenses, such as construction and demolition. However, Mazziotta told UC regents that the institute had so far spent a total of $20 million on “operating expenses, hires” and other expenses.

The Yes on 38 campaign refused CalMatters’ request to interview Michelson for this story, as did Michelson himself in a separate email. A spokesperson for the institute, Becky Warren, sent a written statement that didn't answer CalMatters' questions about employing far fewer people than the five-year plan laid out. Instead, she highlighted the promise of the institute and a few of its milestones, including signing the affiliation agreement with UCLA and clearing a state environmental review of its forthcoming research facility.

The institute won’t get state bond money if it isn’t ready to begin work, “plain and simple,” wrote Swanson, the Yes on 38 spokesperson, in an email. She stressed that though the institute very likely qualifies, the ultimate decision to award half the bond funding is up to the California Department of Public Health.

Institute facility will be built by 2028

The UCLA research park that houses the institute isn’t slated to be fully built until at least late 2028, according to the agenda item of the September UC regents meeting. The research park is a former mall UCLA acquired in late 2023 that’s now undergoing major retrofitting.

But the 2024 affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute anticipated this. The agreement permitted the institute to use UCLA health research space on another campus property on an interim basis. Mazziotta told regents that research is underway there.

Mazziotta also told the regents the institute's construction costs are not fully funded — it still needs roughly $100 million. He said UCLA was in serious talks with a donor to provide about $50 million to the institute.

If Prop. 38 passes, the bond funding would be provided in increments based on how often the institute requests new money that senior state officials approve. If all the funds are depleted, Californians would repay the bond at a rate of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years.

Institute would be exempt from public records act

CalMatters submitted the public records request to UCLA, which must comply with the California Public Records Act. The institute, as a private nonprofit, does not have to comply. And while Prop. 38 would channel billions of dollars in taxpayer money to the institute, the proposition’s language specifically exempts the nonprofit that will receive the $4.2 billion from state public meetings laws, political reform laws and the public records act. The other half of the funds would go to a council that’ll pick projects led by researchers from a limited pool of universities and nonprofits. The council would generally be governed by the state’s political reform act, which prohibits financial self-dealing.

Briggs defended the institute’s exemption in Prop. 38, writing that applying state transparency laws to existing private organizations would “not fit well with how private entities are organized and operate.” Instead, she noted the selected nonprofit institute would be required to publish annual reports on its research progress and financial plans plus commit to annual state audits, among other disclosures written into the ballot measure.

Still unclear to the UC regents is the relationship between UCLA and the institute on matters of public disclosure. Four senior UCLA officials sit on the institute’s board. So is a document held by those UCLA officials public because it’s related to UCLA affairs or private because it’s related to the institute’s affairs? UC’s general counsel couldn’t explain where that dividing line is after a regent member asked him. The regent member, Michael Cohen, said he wants more clarity when the regents meet again in November.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party endorsed Prop. 38, as have dozens of patient and research advocacy groups, plus the state GOP. The union of graduate students and post-doctoral researchers, whose pay often relies on science research funding, has also endorsed the proposition. The union doesn’t represent faculty.

Money raised in support of Prop. 38 now exceeds $66 million, including at least $61.2 million in contributions from Michelson and his policy institute. Roughly $14 million of that includes loans from Michelson. The no camp has raised about $8,800

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.