The Gap: How Washington Left Your Political Feed Without a Label

Top NewsFMNN InvestigatesFMNN Investigates: National
Written by Joseph Jackson
The U.S. Capitol in Washington
The U.S. Capitol, where a 2010 disclosure bill died one vote short. Photo: Noclip via Wikimedia Commons, Public domain.

A disclosure bill fell one vote short in 2010. Another never got a vote. The agency in charge said in 2024 that paid posts aren't its job, then lost the members it needs to act at all. Here's the record, and what a new Congress and Tallahassee can do by spring.

By Joseph J. Jackson | FMNN Investigates: National (Nov. 11, 2026)

Part 2 of 6. Read Part 1: The Price List.

How to read this series: under current U.S. law, being paid to post political content is not treason, terrorism or sedition. This series does not call any named person a traitor or a terrorist. Its argument is that the law hasn't caught up, not that anyone named here broke it.

The short version

  • The gap is narrow and specific. A creator paid by a U.S. campaign, PAC or nonprofit to post politics on their own account doesn't have to tell you. Four federal agencies each cover a different slice of paid speech. None covers that one.

  • Congress came within one vote. The DISCLOSE Act passed the House in 2010 and died in the Senate 59–39, one short of the 60 it needed.

  • No bill aimed at online ads or paid creators has ever had a floor vote. The bipartisan Honest Ads Act was filed in 2017 and never got one.

  • The referee is gone. The Federal Election Commission said in January 2024 that own-page paid posts aren't covered. It has had no quorum since May 1, 2025.

  • States moved. Texas requires disclosure by rule. California added fines in September. Florida has no rule for paid political creators.

  • What can pass: a label on the post. It's the fix courts have backed most firmly, and both Texas Republicans and California Democrats have adopted it.

Part 1 of this series showed what paid political posts cost and who buys them: campaigns, PACs and nonprofits on both sides, and at least one foreign government.

This part is about why none of them has to tell you.

It isn't an accident, and it isn't new. Congress has had the bills in hand since 2010. One fell a single vote short. One never got a vote. The agency that could have closed the gap by rule said it wouldn't, then lost the members it needs to do anything. What follows is that record, in order.

The gap, in one sentence

If a company pays a creator to plug shampoo, federal rules require a label. If a campaign pays the same creator to push a candidate on the creator's own account, nothing does.

Four agencies each cover a slice of paid speech:

  • The Federal Trade Commission polices paid product endorsements. It has no power over political speech.

  • The Federal Election Commission covers political ads placed for a fee on someone else's website or platform. In January 2024 it said that rule does not reach a person paid to post political content on their own page. Two commissioners said the agency had "missed a golden opportunity," according to a Campaign Legal Center petition.

  • The Foreign Agents Registration Act covers people working for foreign governments and parties, not domestic ones.

  • The Federal Communications Commission covers broadcasters, not the internet.

A creator paid by a U.S. campaign fits none of the four. If a 501(c)(4) nonprofit pays instead, there may be no federal record at all.

2006: The door opens

The gap is older than the creator economy. In 2006, the FEC exempted most online activity from its rules and declined to require paid bloggers to disclose, the Campaign Legal Center's petition notes. At the time, political blogging was small. The exemption stayed as the audience grew.

2010: One vote

On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court decided Citizens United and let corporations and unions spend without limit on elections. What gets remembered less is the other half of the ruling. By 8–1, the same court upheld disclosure rules. It took the limits off the spending and left Congress free to make the spenders say who they were.

Congress tried. The DISCLOSE Act passed the House 219–206 on June 24, 2010. In the Senate it needed 60 votes to get past a filibuster. It got 57 on July 27. It got 59 on Sept. 23.

One vote short. The bill came back in 2012 and failed twice more, 51–44 and 53–45. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said it would "erode the First Amendment." The ACLU opposed the 2010 version too, saying it would harm speech and association.

2016 and 2017: The warning, and the bill that never got a vote

In September 2016, U.S. officials briefed 12 congressional leaders on Russian interference in the election. Then-Vice President Joe Biden later said McConnell refused to sign a bipartisan statement warning the public, NPR reported. McConnell's office disputes that account. No joint warning went out.

A year later, Facebook disclosed Russia-linked political ads on its platform, and three senators answered with a bill. Democrats Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner and Republican John McCain introduced the Honest Ads Act on Oct. 19, 2017. It would have given online political ads the same disclaimers and public files that TV and radio ads already carry. Republican Lindsey Graham co-led later versions.

It has never had a floor vote.

In February 2020, the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a bipartisan report, faulted the 2016 response as "overly cautious" and urged quick public warnings when a foreign operation is found. That was advice. Congress never wrote it into law.

2019 to 2022: Passed the House, died in the Senate

The pattern after that is the same every time. When Democrats ran the House, disclosure passed. Then it died at the Senate's 60-vote bar.

  • March 8, 2019: H.R. 1, which included disclosure rules, passed the House 234–193. The Senate never took it up.

  • March 2021: It passed the House again, 220–210.

  • June 22, 2021: The Senate version failed 50–50.

  • Jan. 19, 2022: A combined voting-rights and disclosure package failed 49–51. A vote to change the filibuster rules for it failed 48–52.

2022 to 2024: The referee steps aside

With Congress stuck, the FEC could have acted by rule. In December 2022 it updated its internet disclaimer rule and left paid creators out. On Jan. 2, 2024, it made the gap explicit: a person paid to post on their own page is not covered.

That same year, a state did what Washington wouldn't. On June 18, 2024, the Texas Ethics Commission, a body appointed by state leaders in a Republican-run state, voted 7–0 to require disclosure from anyone paid more than $100 to post political advertising.

2025 and 2026: The referee leaves the field

Since May 1, 2025, the FEC hasn't had the four commissioners it needs to do anything. It can't open an investigation, fine anyone or write a rule. Its case backlog went from 190 in December 2025 to 307 by September 2026, the Washington Sun reported. When the Campaign Legal Center petitioned the FEC for a creator rule on Oct. 23, 2025, there was no one who could vote on it.

President Trump nominated two Republicans, Ashley Stow and Andrew Woodson, in February. The Republican-led Senate never acted on them. Last week, a group of former FEC commissioners wrote to Senate Majority Leader John Thune warning that if the nominees aren't confirmed before the new Congress is sworn in, the agency could stay stuck indefinitely, Campaigns & Elections reported.

The foreign side went dark in the same stretch. On Feb. 5, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi disbanded the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force and limited criminal enforcement of the foreign-agent law to conduct resembling espionage, CBS News reported. In April, Secretary of State Marco Rubio closed the State Department office that tracked foreign disinformation, saying it had worked to "silence and censor" Americans. In August 2025, the intelligence community's Foreign Malign Influence Center was "reduced and absorbed," Defense One reported.

That last one holds a lesson. The center couldn't be closed outright, because a 2019 law bars shutting it before 2028, according to Just Security. The FBI task force and the State Department office existed by memo. They were gone in months. The one office Congress wrote into law is the one still standing.

The administration says these offices censored Americans. Former officials say they tracked foreign governments. Part 3 of this series covers that fight.

2026: The bills exist. None has had a vote.

  • March 4: The DISCLOSE Act was reintroduced, now covering payments to creators. All 47 Senate Democrats signed on.

  • June and July: Rep. Mark Takano and Sen. Adam Schiff filed the PAID Act. It would require anyone paid by a federal campaign or committee to say so on the post.

  • Aug. 24: Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, filed the Foreign Propaganda Disclosure Act. It would add paid creators to the foreign-agent law. Her co-leads include Rep. Jared Moskowitz, a Florida Democrat.

  • Sept. 19: California's governor signed AB 1130, adding $5,000 fines for undisclosed paid political posts in state races and making both the campaign and the creator liable.

What six fixes would have changed

FMNN's reading of this record is that six moments stand out.

  1. 2010. The court had just upheld disclosure 8–1. A narrower bill that required only a disclaimer might have found the 60th vote.

  2. 2017. Honest Ads had Republican co-leads. It needed a floor vote and never got one.

  3. 2020. A bipartisan Senate report called for fast public warnings about foreign operations. Congress didn't require them.

  4. The FEC's design. Six members, three from each party, four votes to act. It has now lost its quorum four times, according to the Congressional Research Service. Congress never fixed it.

  5. 2024. Once the FEC said it couldn't reach paid creators, the fix was a short change to the statute. None passed.

  6. Statute protects. What Congress wrote into law survived 2025. What existed by memo or rule didn't.

The first 100 days: what can actually pass

Democrats take both chambers in January. They'll have at least 54 Senate seats, short of the 60 needed to break a filibuster, and the president has said he won't hesitate to use his veto, Roll Call reported. None of the party's early agendas mentioned disclosure or foreign influence.

RELATED: Part 1: The Price List: Who Pays for the Politics in Your Feed  ·  The Oracle: How Larry Ellison Bankrolled His Son’s CBS and CNN

So the realistic list splits three ways.

What needs Republican votes and a signature. The best odds belong to a foreign-focused package: Luna's bill, the Honest Ads rule against foreign ad buys, and a federal ban on foreign money in state ballot measures, which 25 states already have in some form, according to Ballotpedia. The PAID Act has fair odds. It had no Republican cosponsor as of June. It also covers only money from federal campaigns and committees, so nonprofit-funded programs like the ones in Part 1 would stay untouched. The full DISCLOSE Act has the longest odds. It asks for donor names, and that's where the constitutional objections are strongest.

What Congress can do alone. Hearings and subpoenas need no signature. To be credible, the witness list has to include the left-leaning programs alongside the right-leaning ones. A Republican-led House committee already set that precedent when it asked for one progressive program's contracts in 2025. The Senate can also refuse to move FEC nominees one party at a time. It can't install commissioners, because the president nominates them.

What can ride on spending bills. A standalone bill to restore the closed offices is an easy veto. A funding floor inside a must-pass spending bill is harder to refuse.

Florida doesn't have to wait

States don't need Washington. Texas acted by rule. California acted by law.

Florida has no disclosure rule written for paid political creators. A 2026 bill, SB 898, was drafted as consumer protection. According to the Senate staff analysis, it would have required filings from creators paid by foreign principals, but not an on-post label when a Florida campaign pays. FMNN couldn't confirm the bill's final status.

Florida's election law does require political ads to carry a "paid political advertisement" disclaimer. But Section 106.143 also exempts posts on unpaid social media profiles and accounts, as long as the source is "patently clear" from the content. A paid creator's post is exactly the case where the source isn't clear. FMNN found no ruling on whether the exemption covers it.

There are four things Tallahassee could do in the 2027 session, which overlaps Congress's first 100 days:

  1. Pass a Texas-style rule. Anyone paid more than a set amount by a campaign, committee or electioneering group to post about a Florida race says so on the post. The payer is liable too, as in California.

  2. Ask the question nobody has asked. The Florida Elections Commission could say whether a paid creator's post fits the social-media exemption or needs the disclaimer.

  3. Redraft the foreign-money ballot ban. Florida's 2022 version was blocked in court. Ohio's narrower law survived on appeal.

  4. Lean on the delegation. Two of the four leaders on the foreign-creator bill, Luna and Moskowitz, are Floridians, one from each party.

Florida is also where this money already moves. As Part 1 reported, the Lexington Herald-Leader found Florida records showing Gov.-elect Byron Donalds' campaign and a supporting PAC each paid a Republican digital firm $6,250 a month for most of 2025. Nothing in Florida law required anyone to say what those payments bought.

What critics say

The objections are serious, and the strongest one is constitutional.

Donor privacy. In 2021 the Supreme Court struck down California's demand for charities' donor lists. It held that forced disclosure must be narrowly drawn, because the risk of chilling association is enough. That line of cases goes back to 1958, when Alabama tried to get the NAACP's membership list. The ACLU, the Cato Institute and the Institute for Free Speech have all made this case against DISCLOSE.

It lands much harder on laws that demand donor names than on a label on the post. The label is what Citizens United upheld.

"Secret speech police." In Texas, groups funded by donors Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks said the creator rule could reach ordinary posts. Others said it was too weak, because it binds the poster and not the payer.

It won't work. Creators on both sides say they support disclosure but don't know how to fit a spoken disclaimer into a short video. California's first big test, the Steyer case from Part 1, closed with no fines.

Both parties are hypocrites on this. Senate Republicans point out that Democratic-aligned groups ran the biggest dark-money channels in 2024. Democrats answer that the biggest Republican donors were public only because they chose to be. Both arguments end at the same fix.

The fix is a label

Here's what this record adds up to. The gap wasn't hidden. It was voted on, briefed, petitioned and left open for 16 years, under both parties.

The fix that fits it isn't a new crime and isn't a ban. It's a line on the post: who paid, shown when you see it. Courts have backed that approach more firmly than any other. A commission in Republican-run Texas adopted it 7–0. Democrats in California put fines behind it. It doesn't protect one side or target the other.

Congress can file it on Jan. 3. Florida can file it before session.

Coming next in this series

  • Part 3: Foreign Buyers. Russia, China, Iran and Israel's government, and what Washington stopped watching in 2025.

  • Part 4: The Megaphone Owners. Who owns the platforms and stations, and how "money is speech" changed who gets heard.

  • Part 5: Opinion | This Is a War. The front line is your phone, and the decade Washington could have had.

  • Part 6: The Hate Is the Product. How bigotry became America's domestic propaganda.

Sources

SHARE THIS STORY
Share on Threads Bluesky Facebook X LinkedIn Email
Joseph Jackson
Previous

Trump Was Warned Twice About Huang's Suspected Spy Partner. Now Nvidia Is Preparing to Oust Him.
Next

The Parade Nobody Thought Was DEI: Florida's Narrow Reason, Wide Cut