Steyer campaign files complaint alleging Becerra paid influencers without required disclosures in California governor's race

Tom Steyer's campaign filed a complaint Tuesday with California's Fair Political Practices Commission accusing rival Xavier Becerra of 50 violations of state law, all tied to social media influencers who allegedly posted pro-Becerra content without the political disclaimers California requires.

The complaint, first reported by the New York Post, names two influencers by name and alleges the Becerra campaign failed to disclose payments in its campaign finance reports. It lands weeks before the June 2 primary, with Becerra sitting atop the polls.

For voters trying to figure out who is leveling with them and who is gaming the system, the filing raises a pointed question: if a campaign is paying people to promote a candidate online, shouldn't voters at least know about it?

What the complaint alleges

Ryan Hughes, general counsel for the Steyer campaign, wrote in the complaint that the evidence should clear the bar for enforcement. He urged the commission to act swiftly.

"The evidence cited should be more than enough for the Commission to meet the probable cause standard, open an enforcement action, and aggressively investigate and prosecute the parties and individuals involved."

The complaint centers on two influencers. The first is Jay Gonzalez, who describes himself on social media as a "Mexican American social media strategist." Between March 23 and May 13, Gonzalez posted at least 34 pro-Becerra pieces of content. Emails cited in the complaint show Gonzalez's talent agency offered to create four videos for $16,250.

Some disclaimers on Gonzalez's posts were allegedly edited in long after publication. Others, the complaint states, still carry no disclaimers at all.

The second influencer named is Maggie Reed, who goes by Mermaid Mama Maggie online. Her talent agency reportedly offered campaigns paid content at rates of $4,500 for one video and $7,000 for two. The complaint says Reed posted four pro-Becerra videos without any disclaimer between September 22 and May 15. Reed has hundreds of thousands of followers.

In both cases, the complaint alleges that Becerra's campaign disclosure forms do not list expenditures for Gonzalez or Reed. Hughes accused Becerra of failing to disclose payments in campaign finance reports, a separate but related charge that, if substantiated, could compound the legal exposure.

Becerra's team pushes back

The Becerra campaign denied the allegations flatly. Spokesperson Jonathan Underland said:

"Our campaign has never made payments to a creator in exchange for a post."

Underland went further, accusing Steyer of pulling "the MAGA playbook right off Donald Trump's shelf" and of "buying his way" into the governor's mansion. The framing was notable, a Democratic campaign spokesman reaching for a Trump comparison to deflect a transparency complaint filed by a fellow Democrat.

Becerra's digital strategist, Alf Lamont, posted on X on May 6 that the campaign has only one paid influencer. His message took direct aim at Steyer: "What you're seeing is real engagement from real people. The only person paying for engagement is evidently Steyer."

Reed herself responded sharply when contacted by The California Post, which obtained the complaint. She called the allegations "defamation and untrue."

"Becerra and his team have never paid me. I actually like him and he is the nicest politician I have ever met."

Reed added: "Your article is defamation and insinuates that I am some influencer that will shill for money. I am a comedian. And artist. I work my a** off. And fight for democracy and a better world."

The Becerra campaign also told reporters it did not receive any offers from Reed. Gonzalez does not appear to have responded publicly.

Steyer faces his own influencer questions

The complaint arrives against a backdrop that makes it harder for either side to claim clean hands. Steyer himself has faced backlash over paying influencers to boost his gubernatorial bid. A similar complaint has been filed involving influencers who allegedly failed to disclose they were paid by Steyer's campaign.

The Steyer campaign called those accusations "baseless" and said it disclosed all payments and told influencers of disclosure requirements. Steyer's own history of paying a Texas-based Latino influencer six figures for the California race has drawn scrutiny of its own.

That mutual vulnerability gives the whole episode the feel of two campaigns pointing fingers while standing in the same mud. But the legal question is narrower than the political one. California law requires campaigns to notify influencers about political disclosure rules. The complaint alleges Becerra's operation failed to do so, 50 times.

A pattern in Democratic politics

The California governor's race has become a showcase for the kind of intra-party maneuvering that voters rarely see until a complaint or a leak forces it into the open. Steyer's own $310,000 contribution to Jane Fonda's PAC before she endorsed his bid raised eyebrows about how endorsements are secured in big-dollar Democratic primaries.

The broader pattern extends well beyond California. Democratic officeholders across the country have faced ethics and legal scrutiny in recent years. A House Ethics panel found Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick guilty on 25 of 27 counts, including allegations she funneled millions in COVID funds to her campaign. The cases differ in scale and specifics, but the thread is consistent: rules that exist to protect voters from hidden influence keep getting bent or broken.

Meanwhile, the California governor's race has also produced accusations of campaign dirty tricks between Democratic rivals, with Katie Porter publicly accusing Steyer of leaking a damaging video, a claim that was corrected on the spot by CNN's Dana Bash.

What happens next

The Fair Political Practices Commission has not publicly responded to the complaint. No enforcement action has been announced. The commission will have to decide whether the evidence meets the probable cause standard Hughes described, and whether to open a formal investigation before the June 2 primary.

That timeline matters. If the commission sits on the complaint until after voters go to the polls, any enforcement action becomes an afterthought. Becerra leads in the polls now. Disclosure violations, if they occurred, would have already done their work, shaping voter impressions through content that appeared organic but may not have been.

The specific California statutes allegedly violated are not identified in the complaint's public description. Nor is it clear which campaign finance reports were reviewed or what entries were allegedly missing. Those details will matter if the commission moves forward.

There is also the question of the influencers themselves. Gonzalez's talent agency offered a specific price for specific work. Reed's agency offered paid content at specific rates. Whether money actually changed hands between the Becerra campaign and either influencer, or through intermediaries, is the factual question the commission would need to resolve.

The Becerra campaign's denial is categorical: no payments to any creator in exchange for a post. If that denial holds, the complaint collapses. If emails, bank records, or intermediary payments tell a different story, the 50 alleged violations become a serious legal problem for the frontrunner.

Transparency is the real issue

Strip away the campaign tactics and the mutual finger-pointing, and the core issue is simple. When voters scroll through social media and see someone praising a candidate, they deserve to know whether that person was paid to say it. California passed disclosure laws for exactly this reason. The laws do not work if campaigns ignore them.

Both Steyer and Becerra are progressive Democrats competing for the same office. Neither has a natural claim to the moral high ground on campaign finance transparency. But the complaint filed Tuesday puts specific allegations, specific dollar figures, and specific influencer names on the record. The Fair Political Practices Commission now has a choice: investigate before voters decide, or wait until it no longer matters.

Disclosure laws exist to keep voters informed. When campaigns treat them as optional, or worse, as something to be gamed, the people who lose are not the candidates. They're the voters who thought they were hearing from a real person, not a paid spokesman.

If California's watchdog agency can't enforce its own rules before an election, voters might wonder what those rules are for in the first place.