Latest / Influencer Marketing with Fexingo: Creators, Sponsorships, and Modern Endorsement Deals / When Influencer Campaigns Collide With Election Season
Transcript
- Lucas: Alright, so it's late May 2026, and if you pay any attention at all to the news, you know the midterm primaries are in full swing. But here's a question I don't think enough brand marketers are asking: what happens when your carefully curated influencer campaign runs straight into election season? Luna: Yeah, I've seen a few things already this cycle. A beauty influencer I follow posted a selfie at the polls and her caption was just 'go vote.' And then people in the comments were asking if she was getting paid for it. Lucas: Exactly. That's the kind of gray area we're talking about. The FTC's endorsement guidelines were written for a world where you're endorsing a moisturizer, not a candidate or a ballot measure. And yet, the same basic principle applies: if there's a material connection between the creator and a brand, it has to be disclosed. Luna: But a 'go vote' post isn't necessarily paid for by a brand, right? So where's the material connection? Lucas: That's the thing. It might not be a direct payment. But if a creator is part of a larger brand partnership — say, a year-long deal with a retailer — and that brand has a stated position on voting access, the post could be seen as part of the partnership. And if the FTC decides it is, you're looking at a disclosure failure. Luna: So brands are now adding 'no politics' clauses to influencer contracts. I've seen those. But that seems like a blunt instrument. Lucas: It is. And it creates a weird dynamic. A creator might lose a partnership simply for talking about an issue they genuinely care about, even if there's no financial tie to the topic. But the brand's legal team is thinking: if that post gets shared into a political ad buy, or if it's used in a campaign mailer, we could get dragged into a whole different regulatory framework. Luna: Let's back up a second. What exactly is the regulatory framework for political ads online? Because it's not just the FTC, it's also the FEC, right? And state laws? Lucas: Right. The Federal Election Commission oversees campaign finance, including what counts as a 'contribution' or an 'expenditure.' If a brand pays a creator to post something that expressly advocates for a candidate, that could be considered an in-kind contribution to the campaign. And that triggers a whole set of reporting requirements. Luna: And it gets more complicated because states have their own rules. California, New York, Maryland — they all have different disclosure requirements for online political ads. Lucas: Exactly. So a brand with a national campaign can't just slap a '#ad' on a post and call it a day. They need to know: is this post targeting a state where the law says you have to list the top three funders of the ad? Or where you need a specific disclaimer about who paid for it? Luna: I remember during the 2024 cycle, there was a big mess with a creator who was paid by a voting rights group to post about voter ID laws. The creator did a sponsored Instagram story, but she didn't include a 'paid for by' disclaimer because she thought the '#sponsored' tag was enough. And then the group got fined by the FEC. Lucas: Right, that was a wake-up call. And it's not just about fines. There's reputational risk. If a creator's audience feels tricked into seeing political content, they blame the creator and the brand. So some brands are going the other direction: they're saying, 'we will not work with any creator who has ever mentioned a political candidate, an issue like abortion or gun rights, or even a voting-related hashtag.' Luna: That seems extreme. I mean, a lot of creators talk about climate change or racial justice. Are brands really cutting ties with them just because those topics are politically charged? Lucas: Some are. I talked to a brand safety consultant last week who told me that in Q1 2026, she saw a 40 percent increase in the number of influencer contracts that included a blanket 'no political content during the term' clause. And the definition of 'political' was so broad it included things like 'any mention of a government agency' or 'any reference to a bill in Congress.' Luna: That's basically everything. The EPA is a government agency. The infrastructure bill was a bill. So a creator can't even talk about potholes being fixed? Lucas: That's where it gets absurd. And the problem is, these clauses are hard to enforce because they're so vague. But brands include them because they're afraid of the alternative: getting pulled into a news cycle about 'big brand funds attack ad' or something. Luna: So what's the smarter approach? Because I think a lot of brands are overcorrecting. They're missing out on creators who have huge, engaged audiences precisely because they talk about real issues. Lucas: The smarter approach is to be specific. Instead of a blanket ban, define what counts as political for your brand. Maybe it's only content that expressly advocates for or against a candidate. Or content that uses a campaign hashtag. Then have a process: if a creator wants to post something that touches on an issue, they run it by the brand's legal team first. That way, you keep the relationship and manage the risk. Luna: And what about the disclosure piece? Because even if the brand isn't paying for the political post, the creator might still have an existing brand deal. So the audience might assume the brand is behind it. Lucas: That's the perception problem. And the FTC has said that if there's a pattern of the creator endorsing the brand, and then the creator posts about a political issue, the audience could reasonably infer that the brand endorses that position. So some brands are requiring creators to add a disclaimer like 'This is my personal opinion, not that of my brand partners' on any political post. Luna: That seems like a reasonable middle ground. But I wonder how many creators actually do that. I've seen a few who do, but most just post and hope nobody notices the connection. Lucas: And that's the risk. Especially in a midterm year like this one. We're going to see a lot more political content on social media between now and November. And brands that haven't thought through their influencer policy yet are going to be playing catch-up. Luna: So if you're a brand manager listening right now, what's the one thing you should do today? Lucas: Review your influencer contracts and make sure you have a clear, narrow definition of what constitutes political content. Then have a conversation with your creators about it. Not a threatening one — just a 'hey, here's what we need to keep both of us safe' kind of talk. And if you don't have a legal team, there are standard templates now from the IAB and the ANA that cover this. Luna: I think that's solid advice. And you know, speaking of keeping things running, this kind of practical guidance is exactly why I love doing this show. We get to dig into stuff that actually matters for people's jobs. Lucas: Totally. And we're able to do it because listeners like you support the show. If these marketing conversations have sparked something you've actually used at work, or just made you think differently about an ad you saw, a couple of dollars a month genuinely makes a difference. Buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo — that's where listener support goes, and it's what keeps us ad-free and focused on the real stuff. Luna: Yeah, and it's not about perks or anything. It's just knowing that people find value in what we're doing. That's the best motivation. Lucas: Alright, back to the politics. One more thing I want to flag: if you're a creator listening, be careful about linking to voter registration sites. Some of those sites are run by partisan organizations, and if you're a paid brand partner, that link could be considered a political contribution. Luna: Wow. So even something as seemingly neutral as 'go register' can be a legal landmine. Lucas: Exactly. And that's why the smartest brands and creators are having these conversations now, before the fall campaign season really heats up. Because once the ads start running, there's no time to figure it out. Luna: Well said. I think we've given everyone a lot to chew on. Thanks for listening, and we'll be back next week with another angle.