There Are No Girls on the Internet - The Dark Money Scandal Rocking Democratic Influencers

Episode Date: September 10, 2025

Last week in Wired, Taylor Lorenz published an exposé on Chorus, a new force in Democratic politics that is funding Democratic influencers. Her piece has sparked major controversy among political influencers and their observers online.   In this episode, Bridget breaks down what the article reveals (and what it leaves out), and explores what this fight says about money, power, and trust in American democracy. Read the full piece here: https://www.wired.com/story/dark-money-group-secret-funding-democrat-influencers/ If you’re listening on Spotify, you can leave a comment there to let us know what you thought about these stories, or email us at [e-mail]   Follow Bridget and TANGOTI on social media!  ||  instagram.com/bridgetmarieindc/ || tiktok.com/@bridgetmarieindc ||  youtube.com/@ThereAreNoGirlsOnTheInternet    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer, Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter.

Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting. Think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ads supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined. Learn how podcasting can help your business.

Call 844-844 I-Hart. I'm Joey Dardano. And on my new podcast, hope from a hypocrite, I'll be changing lives, helping people in need with thoughtful solutions. Syke, I'm a comedian. I'm not qualified to give good advice. Join me and my comedian friends as we riff, rant, recommend some of the most legally dubious advice known to me. This is Help from a Hypocrite, the worst advice from the dumbest people you know.

Listen to Help from Hypocrite Wednesdays on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Deanna Maria Riva, and on my new podcast, How Hard Can It Be? I call on my Gen X squad from Ohio to Hollywood as we navigate mid-lar life's most fantastic BS. Unfiltered conversations from night sweats to futas to scheduling sex. Wait, what sex? Is it just me or does every woman my age want to look at Pinterest instead of having sex sometimes? They say we can't polish a turn, but we're sure going to try. So let's get

blunt with laughs, tears, or tears of laughter. Listen to How Hard Can It Be with Diana Maria Riva on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, this is Future Bridget. We did a whole very detailed episode breaking down the controversy about how political content creators in a program called Chorus are paid. And I realized after that episode was recorded that I did not make it explicitly clear that I am not connected to chorus in any capacity. I am not on their payroll. I am not a chorus member. By way of my own financial disclosures for the last year, the majority of my income has come from my various. podcast gigs and a few speaking training gigs. And I just wanted to make that clear. Okay, here's the episode. There are No Girls on the Internet as a production of IHeart Radio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Todd, and this is There Are No Girls on the Internet.

Last week, journalist Taylor Lorenz published a piece in Wired called A Dark Money Group is secretly funding high-profile Democratic influencers. The article blew up on social media, namely on threads. And here to talk through it with me is producer Mike. Mike, thank you for being here. Happy to be here. Thanks for inviting me. This is continuing to be a pretty big story.

And I know it's something that you have been spending a lot of time thinking about. And so I'm excited to hear what you've got to say, Bridget. Well, before we get into the weeds, let me set the stakes here a little bit because this is not just some influencer drama unfolding on social media. The stakes are very real. This is about money and how it shapes what we see online. But still, the conversation about Taylor Lorenza's article very quickly shifted from that bigger picture into a lot of stuff that I have to be honest. I was not super excited to be waiting into you. I actually was kind of trying to stay out of this whole thing.

But you know what? I guess I'm waiting into it. Wish me luck. Yeah. Good luck, Bridget. Good luck out there in here. Everywhere. Good luck everywhere. Why are you so, you know, interested in staying out of it? It seems like, you know, tech, politics, this is your beat, no?

It is my beat. I feel I would be remiss to not mention that this particular article has become something of a battleground for what seems like litigating a lot of grievances. There have been lots of personal attacks flying on social media in the wake of this article. and honestly, it just is not the kind of thing I'm super interested in or comfortable waiting into. Like as much as I love talking about the internet and talking about what's unfolded on social media, I don't love getting mixed up in this level of back and forth as it happens. In my opinion, it's like a little bit harder to thoughtfully talk about internet drama, internet disputes, if you are also super mixed up in them.

So generally speaking, I try to stay out of that kind of thing. You know, something that I've always admired slash marveled about with you is the way that you are really tuned into these conversations in a way like much closer than I am, like multiple orders of magnitude more closely than I am. But still, you're not actually part of what's happening online sometimes. You're not getting caught up in, I guess, the internet drama. Mike, this article came out on August 27th. And currently right now, as of today, September 7th, the fallout and back and forth on social media is ongoing. It's still happening as we speak. That is like 10 days of internet drama.

Basically the Coachella of internet drama. I know myself and I know that I simply do not have the stamina to be involved. 10 days is a crazy long time for anything to be news. Like Trump like blew up some civilians off the coast of Venezuela. last week and we've already moved on from talking about it. Yeah, that 10 days is staying power. So all of that to say, I am going to try to keep this conversation really focused on the substance of the article, not the ongoing social media fallout.

Maybe we could do a follow-up episode about the social media conversation, the article generated because it has been a lot. If you're listening and you want to know what's going on with that, just check threads. It will be very clear what's happening. Just check threads. but I'm going to try to be as fair as possible. Stick to discussing the facts of the article, and where something is my opinion, I'll try to let you all know.

All right, Bridget. So what is in this article? So in this article, Taylor Lorenz digs into a program called Chorus, where a handful of progressive social media creators are paid along a tier system. The highest end of the tier being $8,000 a month, the lowest end of the tier being $250 a month. Okay. And so in this program, what are these influencers getting paid for?

It sounds to me like a training program or a fellowship. On social media, creators in the program have described getting training on things like how to make better use of YouTube and how to tighten their messaging and stuff like that. The creators say that they are paid to attend these meetings and trainings, which is pretty typical of a fellowship. Here's a bit from the frequently asked questions on the chorus website. Question, will I be paid to make content? Answer. Nope, Chorus is a creator-led, nonpartisan nonprofit with a really different model in the creator space. We don't pay creators to produce content. We just give you the space to learn about how to communicate effectively and grow your platforms.

In other words, creators are free to post what they want, when they want. This includes their affiliation with Chorus. I should say that I don't know when this information was added to their website. So essentially, this article says that these high-profile progressive creators with millions of followers signed on to this restrictive contract. with Chorus that puts restrictions on what they can talk about, how they can engage with lesson officials, and forbids them from disclosing any of the finances around it publicly. A piece that does not seem to be in dispute here is that this is in no way the kind of program where Chorus is paying creators to push specific talking points or messaging or make specific

posts. All parties seem to agree there. But I am going to try to sketch out some of the pieces that are in dispute here. The first is whether or not creators by signing a contract with chorus are handing chorus control over how they are able to connect with elected officials. A lot of the contact creators in this cohort have been regularly interviewing and speaking to elected officials on their platforms, which I know is kind of a big deal if you're an independent creator and not affiliated with a larger news network or agency, right? Like having a big name political figure on your Instagram or on your TikTok to do an interview is a big deal. And I think the implication in the article is that Chorus could be trying to control how creators signed

as a program deal with elected officials. If I'm able to book an interview with, let's say, Kamala Harris on my own, the piece argues that I would still have to funnel that interview through chorus to not be in breach of my contract. The piece includes this bit that includes a quote from a creator who declined to participate in the program. Many creators expressed concerns about some of the stipulations. According to copies of the contract viewed by Wired, creators in the program must funnel all bookings with lawmakers and political leaders through chorus. Creators also have to loop chorus in on any independently organized engagements with government officials or political leaders. If I want to work with another politician, I have to fully collaborate with them, said one

creator who was offered the contract but ultimately declined to take it and asked not to be named. If I get Zoran and he wants to do an interview with me, I don't want to give that to them. So some creators pushed back on this claim on social media, and have said that not only does Chorus not require them to book all their interviews with elected through Chorus, that even this implication, you know, that they can't use their own hard-won lists of contacts on relationships to book their own interviews was insulting. And in a follow-up interview with popular live-streamer and sex pest, Destiny, whose real name is Stephen Bonnell, who, yes, if you know about Destiny, just know that I have thoughts about him, but I am going to try to stay focused here.

Taylor Lorenz clarifies in an interview with Destiny. Just a heads up, it's kind of an orally unpleasant clip. That funnel, like, heavily implies that you, the way that the article is written is that chorus can block you from doing your own independent media, I guess. We don't make that claim in this story, and I'm sorry if the word funnel sort of implied that to but we don't we don't make that claim so stephen you brought something up that i think is is i just one more one more quick question and then you okay you said okay because i don't know why because you use loop chorus in on the next sentence why not to say loop in because i've never my life heard funnel

funnel always means you're handing the reins over to somebody else right like we are using their program to book it but sure but you could also book it on your own right because the next sentence you have is that um you can loop course in on any independently organized you have to them in. Yeah, but loop in is not funnel. Those are two really different things, right? Okay, okay. So, wait, do you acknowledge those are two really different things to loop somebody in versus to funnel it through?

I mean, I personally don't interpret it that way, but if you want to interpret it that way, you're welcome to interpret it that way. I wanted to include this clip because I think it illustrates very well a bit of what I suspect is happening here. Parts of the article are written in such a way that, in my opinion, could probably lead a reason reader to think that something more nefarious than what is actually being described is happening. Because when I read that bit, I thought, oh, it sounds like Chorus is controlling how these creators can connect with elected officials. But in that follow-up interview that Lorenz did with Destiny that we just heard, it actually sounds like she's not saying that at all. It sounds like Taylor is actually saying these creators can book interviews with elected officials through

chorus, or they can book interviews with elected officials on their own independently, as they've always been doing, just as long as they give chorus a heads up. So Lorenz is correct that the article never flat out explicitly says, creators, contracts, gives chorus control over what elected officials they can and can't speak to you and about what and how. But then my question would be, then what is meant to be the takeaway from even including that bit? It really, it is just a standard humdrum provision that, like, oh, creators are basically free to do whatever is. they want when it comes to booking interviews, just give us a heads up. So in my opinion, there are pieces of the article that inadvertently or not are leading to the impression that something more nefarious

is going on than what is actually stated to be happening. And that sort of nefarious yet unstated implication is the thing being litigated on social media, not what the article actually says is going on. That makes a lot of sense because, you know, I read through this article. And it does give one the sense that something nefarious is happening. But then that quote that we just read being talked about in the interview there, as I think is a good example, where one sentence says that creators in the program must funnel all bookings with lawmakers and leaders through chorus.

But then the next sentence says that actually they don't need to do that. And so it's not even just the word funnel, but it's like the words around it, you know, must funnel all bookings. it really strongly implies something that is then contradicted in the next sentence and yeah to your point

like what are we meant to take away from that like all bookings must be funneled except for the ones that aren't yeah creators must funnel all bookings through chorus unless they don't want to then just give them a heads up I genuinely don't know what we as the audience are meant to take away from that

so it's not clear to me why it's included and this is just one specific piece that stood out to me but there's more stuff like this throughout the piece that we'll talk more about. Let's take a quick break. Another podcast from some SNL late-night comedy guide. Not quite.

Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman, help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel, help an Acapella band with their between songs banter. There's the worst singer in the group. The worst? Yeah.

Me. Is there anything to the idea that? because you're from Harvard. You only got in because your parents made a huge donation. The group. The yard birds, right? That's the name. The Harvard yard, but they're open.

Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle-aged. One erection. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the I-Heart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. You love me. I need some jokes to make me seem funny.

Run a business and not thinking about podcasting, think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ads supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. Plus, only IHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business. Think IHart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting.

Let us show you at iHeartadvertising.com. That's iHeartadvertising.com. What's up, fam? It's Isaiah Thomas. And I'm C.J. Toledano, and our podcast, Point Game is about defying the odds. Like LeBron heading into the playoffs without Luca and Austin Reed. And finding ways to win no matter what. He's the smartest player to ever play the game. His IQ is at a level that we've never seen before.

And he knows. Without Luca and Austin Reeves, I got to manipulate the game. We get a player's perspective on the challenges of the playoffs. I think Joker's going to be exhausted this series because when they don't have Rudy in the lineup, he has to really guard guys like Nas Reid. He has to guard Julius Randall. And then he has to give us everything he gives us

on the night-to-night basis on offense. And when IT's friends stop by, like Quentin Richardson, we dive into some playoff history too. Steve Nash would get that thing. That man, hell get the flying. He running up the court, licking his fingers why he got the ball, like, after you go through a training camp with that, I say,

you figure it out. real quick. Get your ass up and down the court and you're going to get the ball. So listen to Point Game on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Deanna Maria Riva, actress, mother, lover, and a Gen X woman walking through life one hot flash and hormonal crying jag at a time. You ladies know what I mean. I'll bet you a perimenopausal chin here you do. So let's talk about it. Join me on my new podcast. How hard can it be with Deanna Maria Riva, where I call on my Gen X squads from Ohio to Hollywood as we navigate midlife's most fantastic. B.S. All of a sudden I'd had hanginess happening on my own. I was like, what the hell is that?

I was married when I had her, so I didn't even consider how empty that nest was going to be. Mood swings, night sweats, fupas, sex drive. Wait, what sex? Dating at 45. How can it be getting naked at 50 with a new guy? That one's kind of hard. Well, that's lighting. They say we can't polish a turd, but we're sure going to try. So let's get blunt with laughs, tears, or tears laughter and dive into it unfiltered and unbothered and ask, how hard can it be? I cannot believe I'm about to say this out loud in public. Listen to How Hard Can It Be with Diana Maria Riva as part of my Cultura podcast network available on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

At our back. I think probably the biggest piece in dispute and kind of the crux of why I think this article blew up on social media the way that it did is the question of whether or not the chorus contract restricts what kind of issues creators can speak on. Here's an example of what I mean. The piece reads that the contracts placed, quote, restrictions on what sort of political content the creators can produce. But the only specific example that the article mentions of the contract

stipulating what kind of political issues creators in the program can speak to is a clause, quote, prohibiting the disparagement of other creators. Not being able to criticize anyone else affiliated with Chorus felt restrictive to some according to text. messages posted to the chat. So maybe there's more to it than that, but if that's the case, it is certainly not mentioned in any kind of specific way in this article. And when one of the creators in the cohort, Aaron Parnas, pointed out on social media that the creators were not being paid to create specific content or specific messaging, Loren says that he is correct,

saying, Aaron is correct that Corus didn't pay them to post specific content, but I do think that the contract was unethical and how it banned disclosures. So I think this is a big piece of what's going on here and why this article touched a nerve. In my opinion, the article seems to suggest, without outright saying it, that progressive influencers are being paid by dark money to say or not say certain things about certain political issues. But then the article doesn't really ever actually illustrate any of that in any kind of specific way beyond saying that the creators are not allowed to criticize other creators in the cohort. But then when you check out the conversation on social media about the article, you have people saying things like, oh, well, this explains

why big progressive creators were silent on Gaza because they were being paid not to talk about it. But to be clear, the piece itself never outright says this, but that is clearly the way it was interpreted by a ton of people online. To the point where some of the creators in the program started posting receipts of them publicly talking about Gaza and their content. Some of the creators in the program have been very vocal about the issue, and some of them haven't. Lorenz even did a bit of this herself in an at-times he did exchange with Elizabeth Booker, a black woman attorney and public health professional and contact creator who is in chorus. Lauren spoke directly to her saying,

Hi, Elizabeth. How many creators in the 1630 fund Dark Money Scheme have you, use their platform to fight against the Zionist apartheid and speak out against the genocide in Gaza. Out of the 90 creators, it seems like you can only point to Heidi and Ali, whom was included in the program after siding with you in an online controversy. How many of the other of those 90 influencers are calling out Zionism? Are you? So first, I have followed Elizabeth Booker, and I can say that she has spoken out about Gaza. But to be honest, this post from Taylor kind of confused me because if Taylor Lorette, agrees that Corris is not controlling what kind of content the cohort can post.

I don't understand what she is trying to imply here. Is she saying that Corrist actually is preventing members of the cohort from speaking out about Palestine? Then how come, as she points out in this post, some of the cohort has been able to be very vocal about it. Like, I genuinely don't understand the implication here, and I don't really have an answer for what's going on. And if these influencers are being paid to not talk about Gaza, that would be a huge story. But it seems like Lorenz isn't saying that that's what's going on here, but is also kind of acting as if that's what's going on here.

So when I say that the piece, in my opinion, has led to people kind of inferring something nefarious is happening without really outright saying what that nefarious thing is beyond the financial disclosures, which we'll get to in a minute, that's kind of what I mean. And a bit of a side note about this, I have what I will own might be a bit of an unpopular opinion about this. Something that I find really interesting is how the genocide of Gaza online has become kind of a litmus test to keep track of who said what and when, right? There is absolutely reason to side-eye people with huge platforms who have not been using those platforms to speak up about Gaza. But to me, sometimes online, it can sort of turn into a way to gotcha. people to prove that they aren't as progressive or something. And I just sort of don't like the idea of a genuine genocide that is killing people, children, being turned into a way to win an online argument or score points on social media. And the fact that some of this response to the article

has turned into these creators essentially having to prove that they were not paid by the Democrats to be silent on Gaza, even though the article never specifically even alleges that to be the case, I think just shows how reductive some of the conversation online has gotten. And to me, that reveals another point. The article itself never says this whole thing is connected to the Democratic Party, but I can see how readers would walk away with that impression. Yeah, me too. You know, I think even though the article doesn't explicitly say it,

the implication is clear that there's this effort by powerful forces on the left to control the left, even though, as you said, it isn't explicitly stated in the article, but the vagary is a feature of it, not a bug, and then people can project whatever worldview they have onto that vagary. Yeah, that's a good way to put it. You know, the piece calls the creators in the program, democratic political influencers, and some of them do have documented relationships with the Democratic Party,

things like attending the Democratic National Convention as a contact creator, which full disclosure, I also attended the Democratic National Convention as a content creator. I was not paid, not by a long shot. I actually paid several hundreds of dollars out of my own pocket to go to the Democratic National Convention as a content creator. I actually have been kind of meaning to make an episode about what that experience was like. I'm still sort of wrestling with whether or not this would actually be interesting for anyone to listen to or not. you know, it was the Democratic Party's inaugural class of kind of influencers, contact creators, sending them to the Democratic National Convention the same way that you

would send other journalists. So I've attended both the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention as a traditional journalist and as part of this, like, cohort of contact creators, influencers. I don't know. Maybe I'll make an episode about that. But the main thing that I took away from that experience was that, and I mean no shade to contact creators because I respect them and I, in some ways, I think I am adjacent to content creators. But going to the D&C as part of a cohort of content creators really illustrated to me that I am not a content creator. Like, I don't know exactly what I am, but I know that I am something else, if that makes

sense. I have been after you to make that episode since you came back because I thought what you had to say was pretty interesting. And I suspect listeners would too. And so listeners, if you want Bridget to talk about it, Send us an email. Hello at tangiote.com. I mean, I got to stay focused on this, but we can make that episode. We can make that episode. I found it interesting. So the piece just sort of lumps all of these creators as being in with the Democratic Party in a way that kind of suggests that they are essentially paid mouthpieces for the Democratic Party on social media.

Consider the subhead of the article, which reads, an initiative aimed at boosting Democrats online offers influencers up to 8. thousand dollars a month to push the party line. But when one of the creators in the cohort asked Taylor Lorenz on threads, what evidence that she had that these creators were being paid specifically to push Democratic messaging online, like the subhead says, she said, quote, I hear you on the feedback. Reporters don't write subheadings. Chorus was always public, but the funding was not. I do think that funding sources across the political spectrum should be disclosed. Transparency is good. So again, it kind of sounds like what Lorenz is repeating is that the whole thing is about financial disclosure, not how money is being used to control what influencers can and can't say online, which makes the

fact that all of the dust that has been kicked up around this article is really about whether or not these creators are essentially paid shills for the Democratic Party really curious to me, which brings me to my biggest and most complicated and, to be honest, probably most boring dispute raised in the piece, which is exactly who is funding Corrus and is that funding being properly disclosed. So who is funding chorus? Well, this is from Corrus's website. Chorus is a 501-C4 nonprofit organization

with grassroots support from over 5,000 individuals since launching in December 2024. We're grateful to those who understand the importance of investing in the independent media ecosystem to make sure that content creators have access to training and tools that help them grow. But the Wired article names, the 1630 fund as Corriss's donor.

I will say right now that the relationship between 1630 and Corrus is a little bit unclear to me. The article does not give, as far as I can tell, any evidence to confirm that 1630 is actually the entity funding the cash that then goes to pay creators. To be clear, it is entirely possible that that is the case. I just can't personally speak to it. And I don't feel like the article paints a clear enough portrait to say, one where the other definitively. This is a little bit wonky, but I have seen folks say that 1630 is not

actually Corriss's funder in the sense that it is not providing money to Corrus, you know, the money that then goes to pay the creators. But that 1630 is actually Corriss's fiscal sponsor. A fiscal sponsor is a nonprofit organization that agrees to let another project or group, usually one that does not have its own nonprofit status, use its legal tax exempt status. this is a totally commonplace occurrence in the nonprofit world. So I sometimes do trainings on how to spot things like media manipulation and disinformation online. If I wanted to continue doing that work as a nonprofit and try to get grant funding to support

it, I could either, one, go through the very complicated process of setting up my own nonprofit for myself, or two, I could find another organization that is already a nonprofit and they could act as my fiscal sponsor so that I could do that work under their nonprofit umbrella and be eligible for grant funding to do it. So I don't know if this is the kind of arrangement that Corus does have with 1630. Here's what the article says about the 1630 Fund and Corrises relationship with them. In 2018, the 1630 Fund provided $141 million to more than 100 left-leading causes in order to bolster democratic support during the midterms.

according to a tax filing obtained by Politico. In 2020, the fund distributed more than $400 million, according to the organization's public tax filing, which Politico said was used in efforts to unseat then-President Donald Trump and Republicans' Senate majority. In 2022, 1630 funds spent $196 million backing state ballot measures on abortion rights heading into midterms, according to NBC. Just four donors accounted for close to two-thirds of the fund's revenue in 2023, according to its tax filings. The major donor group gave $50.5 million, with others donating $31.8 million, and $13.6 million. The 1630 fund, which is not required to disclose its contributors, has for years been a major funding source for liberal and progressive causes and groups, including those that

spend in elections, says Walker Davis, a research director for the open government group, citizens for responsibility and ethics in Washington. Though their recent tax returns in that they have pulled back from the eye-popping sums they raised and spent in 2020, the organization is still one of the top spending politically oriented nonprofits in the country. So here's what it has to say about the actual relationship between Chorus and 1630. Chorus, which is described in contracts reviewed by Wired as a project of the 1630 Fund that handles operations for the creator program launched in November 2024 with ties to good influence, a for-profit influencer marketing agency aimed at helping content creators connect with

social good campaigns. So this is really kind of all that it says. And I think that KORIS being a quote, project of 1630 could honestly mean a lot of things. I could pretty easily see an organization calling themselves a project of their fiscal sponsor. This is the kind of thing that happens in the nonprofit space all of the time. I would need to see more information. to be able to say one way or another. But to me, whether or not 1630 is a financial backer or fiscal sponsor is critical to the central argument that is being made in this article. So it's kind of a shame that we don't know more specifics about what is going on here. If 1630 is indeed the fiscal sponsor, I think the entire premise of the article kind of falls apart. So it would have been

a good thing to clarify and make super duper clear in this piece. So with that, knowing more information myself, it's hard for me to really say much about this particular piece of it. However, I did use to work as an online organizer for the Sunlight Foundation, an organization that was dedicated to government transparency and transparency around money and politics. So I can sort of speak to it generally. 1630 is what's known as a dark money group, a political nonprofit organization, usually operating under what's known as a 501C4, that can spend money to influence. elections, and public policy without disclosing its donors. But not every 501C4 is a dark money

group. The big piece to understand here is that what distinguishes a 501c4 from a dark money group is that a 501c4 is a social welfare organization. They're allowed to do a mix of charitable or community work and political advocacy. Many of them do things that are only loosely political or not political at all, like community groups, local civic leagues, or issue-based nonprofits. You can probably think of some 501C4s that are doing great work like the Sierra Club or the League of Women Voters. So yes, these groups do advocacy and they do lobbying, but they are not just pass-throughs for anonymous money into election ads. Like they're known organizations with visible memberships and transparent public activities. So it separates these 501s from traditional dark money

groups is that dark money groups spend significant amounts of money in elections on things like ads forward against candidates, voter mobilization, etc. They do that while intentionally going out of their way to keep their donors secret. I just want to jump in briefly because I feel obligated to remind listeners that we as Americans briefly had a period when dark money in politics was more severely restricted. A lot of our listeners, I think, might be too young to remember, but the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 substantially reduced its impact. There was this bipartisan agreement that was pretty effective for a few years at reducing the amount of dark money in politics. And it was great for democracy for all of eight years until John Roberts and the Supreme Court pretty much decimated it in 2010.

And I think this is important context for this conversation, even though it hasn't been the law for the past 15 years. but I think it's important to remember that Congress, acting on behalf of the American people, was like, nah, this dark money stuff is no good. We have to get it out of here. And so they passed the law to outlaw it. But then the Supreme Court, led by John Roberts, who is still there today,

continuing to lead it, essentially just gutted that law. And so now dark money is everywhere. And so pretty much any political ad you might see, unless it's coming directly from a candidate's official campaign, is probably funded with dark money. It's just everywhere. That's just the reality that we are,

living in in America. Yes, that is important context. I will say it does get a little bit murky this distinction between 501c4s and dark money because it's not 100% cut and dry these days. The IRS only requires that politics not be a 501c4's, quote, primary activity. But primary is not very clearly defined. So in practice, a lot of 501c4s do spend quite heavily on politics with without being considered traditionally dark money groups. This is why people are able to say, like, oh, if you took money from MoveOn, you took dark money. And they can say that and have it be, I guess, sort of technically a tiny little bit true because groups like MoveOn can receive anonymous donations because they have a C4 arm.

But it is actually mostly not true because they're not really dark money groups because their political activities are public. It is a bit nuanced because I think it goes to show that whether a group is technically a traditional dark money group or not, it is hard to know the exact sources of every single dollar when it comes to these kinds of organizations, even those organizations that are not technically traditional dark money groups, precisely because there are structures that those groups can use to obscure it. It's just not very cut and dry. So I know that's a little bit in the weeds and wonky, but remember that distinction because it's going to become important for a claim that is being personally

made against Taylor Lorenz in a moment. And Bridget, I just want to commend you for the clarity of that piece about fiscal sponsors and 501C4s. Like, man, I know that is not your bread and butter talking about that stuff, but, you know, good work getting through it clearly. Well, that's kind of my thing about this article is that the actual substance of it is like wonky and quite boring. And it's not surprising to me that people are like focusing on.

something else when the actual meat of it is comes down to the distinction between 501c4s and 501c3s and fiscal sponsors like I understand why people are like oh boring let's just attack a bunch of creators on social media that's much better more after a quick break another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guide not quite unhumored me with robert smigle and friends me and hilarious guests from jim gaffigan to bob odin kirk to david letterman help make you funnier this week my guest SNL's Mikey Day and headwriter Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs

banter. There's the worst singer in the group. The worst? Yeah. Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation. The group. The yard birds, right? That's the name.

The Harvard Yard. But they're open. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle aged, one erection. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the IHart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Humor me. I need some jokes to make me seem funny. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting, think again.

More Americans listen to podcasts than ad-supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your voice. message. Plus, only IHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business. Think IHeart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Call 844-844-I-Hart to get started. That's 844-844-I-Hart. What's up, fam? It's Isaiah Thomas. And I'm C.J. Toledano, and our podcast Point Game is about defining the odds. Like LeBron heading into the playoffs without Luca and Austin Reed. And finding ways to win no matter what. He's the smartest player to ever play the game. His IQ

is at a level that we've never seen before. And he knows. Without Luca and Austin Reeves, I got to manipulate the game. We get a player's perspective on the challenges of the playoffs. I think Joker's going to be exhausted this series because when they don't have Rudy in the lineup, he has to really guard guys like Nas Reid. He has to guard Julius Randall.

And then he has to give us everything he gives us on the night-to-night basis on offense. And when IT's friends stop by, like Quentin Richardson, we dive into some playoff history too. Steve Nash would get that thing That man, hell get the flying. He running up the court, licking his fingers Why he got the ball, like,

after you go through a training camp with that, IZAD, you figure it out real quick. Get your ass up and down the court, and you're going to get the ball. So listen to Point Game on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Will Ferrell's Big Money Players and IHeart Podcast presents soccer moms.

So I'm Leanne. This is my best friend Janet. Hey. And we have been joined at the Hipsons High School. Absolutely. Now a redacted amount of years later. We're still joined at the hip. Just a little bit bigger hips, wider.

This is a podcast. We're recording it as we tailgate our youth soccer games in the back of my Honda Odyssey. With all the snacks and drink. Sidebar. Why did you get hard seltzer instead of beer? Oh, they had a bogo. Well, then you got it. Do you want a white color or something here?

Just hit it. Oh, what are y'all doing? Microphones? Are you making a rap album? Oh, I would. Come on. I would buy it. Cuts through the defense like a hot.

Hot knife through sponge cake. That sounds delicious. Oh, you're lucky I'm not a drug addict. You're lucky I'm not an alcoholic. You are. I'm lucky I'm not a killer. I love this team and I'm really trying to be a figure in their lives that they can rely on. Oh.

Listen to soccer moms on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's get right back into it. We were talking about what exactly. exactly a dark money group is. I swear I am almost done with this part of the podcast. But just to wrap it up, the big piece to understand about all of this is that classic dark money groups are extremely high dollar, opaque, and most importantly, deliberately structured to mask donor identities while spending very heavily on elections, judicial fights, and ballot initiatives. So whether or not 1630 is actually the financial backer like Taylor Lorenz says in the piece,

or is simply the fiscal sponsor essentially lending KORAS, its nonprofit status, for them to be able to operate as a nonprofit, I cannot personally say. But I can say that Taylor Lorenz is 100% correct here, that 1630 is a dark money group. I wanted to make that point really, really clear, probably too clear, because I have seen something kind of floating around online, basically acting like dark money is just kind of a bad vibe that Taylor Lorenz is attaching to certain class of money she doesn't like willy-nilly, when she is right that it is a pretty specific thing. Like, it is the kind of thing that has special tax forms.

Yeah, it's a real thing. And Lorenz's article in Wired says that the contract that all of these creators signed says that they are not able to disclose their relationship to Corrus or 1630. Quote, according to copies of the contract viewed by Wired that creator signed, the influencers are not allowed to disclose their relationship. with Chorus or the 1630 fund, or functionally, that they are being paid at all. So this piece is a little bit tricky. First, the article suggests that they are contractually prevented from disclosing their relationship with Chorus, but creators online are saying, hey, I've been talking about being part of Chorus in my content since I started up with a cohort.

My picture is on the Chorus website. How could you say that I have not disclosed my relationship with them and that I've been doing it in secret? When this has come up on social media, Taylor Lorenz has pointed out that, yes, creators have not made their relationship with Chorus a secret, but that they have not disclosed 1630s relationship with Chorus, whatever that might be, and that they are barred from doing so because of their contract. I get what Lorenz is saying here. I really do. Financial disclosure is important, and there should be a standard of disclosing financial ties just to keep everything above board. But if indeed 1630 is the financial backer of course and not just the fiscal sponsor,

I could also see creators saying, well, how far back am I expected to go to trace and disclose the origin of where every dollar I get comes from? You know, I myself got a grant for $10,000 for some work I was doing several years ago. I could tell you the name of the organization that I applied to to get that grant. I could tell you the name of the organization that was on that check? could I tell you every funder and every dollar that funded that organization that wrote that check? I honestly probably could not. So I really do see both sides here.

Lorenz is absolutely correct that transparency and disclosure is important and an ethical thing to do. And I also kind of see where these creators are coming from when they say, you know, if I say I'm a chorus partner, if I talk about my relationship with chorus publicly, that should be enough disclosure. Like how far back am I as a chorus creator expected to go when I'm disclosing? And who sets that standard? It sounds like what these creators are saying on social media is that this feels like Taylor Lorenz setting a standard that they don't personally feel as fair. Yeah, and so what is the standard?

And what are we talking? Are we talking ethical standards or legal standards? Well, if you want to get into what the law says, the law is actually not super clear here because political influencers don't face the same kinds of disclosure rules that product influencers do. You know, when somebody is paid to promote a product like a handbag or makeup, the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, requires them to use things like hashtag ad or otherwise disclose that it is a sponsorship. But the FTC's authority is limited to commercial speech, not politics. Political content falls under the FEC, the Federal Elections Commission, which mainly

requires campaigns and PACs to report their spending to the government, not for influencers to disclose it directly to their followers in their content. That means that political influencers really don't have to add hashtag ad or any kind of similar tags even if they're being paid. In the article, Taylor Lorenz quotes Graham Wilson, a lawyer working with Chorus from a Zoom he did with the creators

where he said, there are some real advantages to housing this program at a nonprofit. It gives us the ability to raise money from donors. It also, with this structure, it avoids a lot of the public disclosure or public disclaimers, you know, paid for by blah, blah, blah. that you see on political ads. We don't need to deal with any of that.

Your names aren't showing up on reports filed with the FEC. So this strikes me as not great. And also, it strikes me as the actual substance of the article. Now, to be clear, Wilson is correct that legally, creators don't have to disclose their financial relationships with their funders to their audiences in their content. Legally, no. Ethically, well, that's a much more complicated story.

And I think the actual question the article raises has been a bit buried, and that is, what ethical obligation do creators have to disclose what funding they have gotten? And when do they have that obligation? If a creator joins a training program where they learn media skills, but have creative control over what they say online, do they still need to disclose funding for that media training? This kind of became a flashpoint because when the article came out, some people were really trying to attack Taylor Lorenz, personally by saying, well, she herself is a journalism fellowship funded by Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire donor who founded eBay. So the question was, well, why doesn't Taylor Lorenz have to disclose that she is also taking dark money? The difference here is that Omidiar is not a dark money group traditionally. Again, you could kind of sort of try to make the argument that they are because they do have a C-4 arm, which technically means that some of its money could be classified as dark money because those donors don't have to be disclosed. But Omidyar is not a dark money group in the traditional sense because with Omidyar, you generally know who was behind the money,

Pierre Omidyar, and you know where that money goes. It is not set up to obscure that fact like a true dark money group like 1630 is set up. So to me, that is not really a fair critique of Taylor Lorenz at all. I think folks were trying to make the point that it actually is sometimes complicated to know where every single source for every single dollar of your income is coming from. And then if you're going to be calling out other people on that, you then kind of have to be willing for folks to start watching your pockets. And under a system like capitalism, when you follow the source for most money that moves around in this country, there might be stuff in there that, yeah, we don't love. And I think one of the reasons why people brought this up

as a critique on Taylor Lorenz in the wake of the article, is that, you know, being paid to make content online, especially leftist content, is hard. Trust me, very few people out there are getting rich from making leftist content on the internet. It is a hustle. So I get the sense that these creators sort of feel like they're being pocket-washed a little bit. You know, do you know that phrase, pocket-watched?

I don't know that phrase, no, but you have my attention. What does it mean? So it might be more of a black community phrase, but it's basically the idea that someone is really scrutinizing where the money of someone else comes from. And it's not a good feeling. And so my sense is these creators feel like they are being pocket watched in public right now.

Oh, interesting. I had not heard that, but that is a useful phrase. I've definitely had that sensation of being pocket watched. Now I have a label for it. Yes, pocket watched. So I do think the ethics of taking money, without disclosing it is a very fair question. And just because it seems to not be in dispute that Corris is not paying creators to say or not say specific messages,

that doesn't mean there is no question around the ethics of all of this. I think it's really about trust. I want a world for us where people are able to trust the massive political platforms that they follow and have a sense of how and if money is shaping the kinds of messages we're all seeing on social media. And I do think that being cagey about how you're paid, probably gets us further from that ideal, but I also think that this handful of creators didn't set up this broken complex system

that we're all navigating. And this, I think, is the real meat of the article. These creators are disclosing that they're members of this cohort, but according to Lorenz, they are contractually prevented from disclosing the financial relationship they might have with Corus and 1630.

And what is tough about this is that I have no idea whether or not this is true. Loren says that Wired looked at the contract, but it's not reprinted in the article or anything because that could potentially reveal who that contract belongs to if they reprinted it. When I was gearing up to do this episode, I was all gung-ho to send the contract to my own attorney who works on all of my contracts to get his take. Shout out to podcast attorney Lindsay. He is like a certified silly goose and y'all would have loved hearing from him.

But the article doesn't publish any contract or any part of any contract, so I couldn't even do that. And that's an issue because the creators are saying, oh, well, our contract doesn't say this, or they're saying Taylor Lorenz, who is not an attorney, is a misunderstanding what our contract says. So there is a little bit of kind of trust us in this article because readers cannot see the contract for themselves. Lorenz has been very vocal on social media saying that the creators in the cohort should simply publish their contract if they think that she has misrepresented it in her piece. and those creators are saying, well, the burden of proof should be on the person making the claim or the allegation. Why should I have to provide my contract to speak to a claim that Taylor made?

So it's essentially a stalemate. So that's one of the reasons that I can't really speak to the contract part of this. I would have really liked the opportunity to check out the contract for myself. I'm certain that wired fact checkers and lawyers reviewed the piece before publishing it, but I would have liked for it to be spelled out that a lawyer who specializes in these kind of contracts, like not just Wires General Counsel, somebody who was a contract specialist, read the contract and confirmed that it said all the things that the article says that it does.

I don't say that to criticize Taylor Lorenz. I just know that contract legalese can be complex to parse. I was actually just having a conversation with an attorney about how attorneys who don't specialize in certain kinds of contracts don't necessarily have the experience to know what those contracts say. So I think the article could have really disbenefit. from more of a needy deep dive into what the contract actually says because it is at the crux of the argument being made in the article. But I also don't want to make it seem like I'm just

dismissing what Lorenz has brought up here. There are pieces raised in the article that I think are absolutely worth talking about. A big one is, should dark money groups even exist? You know, the 1630 fund is a dark money group, but even their executive director, Amy Kurtz, has written publicly about this in an op-ed written after the 2024 election. She writes, We recognize that our campaign finance system needs to be changed.

1630 Fund has been on the record actively supporting a massive rewrite of the rules to provide more transparency and disclosure in our elections. As we prepare to welcome the 119th Congress, 1630 Fund will continue to advocate for reform that restores our faith in our campaign finance system. No matter where you fall on the ideological spectrum,

everybody reaps the benefits of democracy and transparency. So thanks to Citizens United, dark money groups are able to have an opaque, unchecked grip on our democracy. All dark money groups are not doing nefarious things. I can see from looking them up on open secrets, which is a site that tracks money in politics, that 1630 funds a ton of work that I think is great that I'm totally ideologically aligned with.

But maybe we still shouldn't have a democracy that can be controlled financially by forces that the public does not really get to know about, even if they're doing it along ideological lines that I personally agree with. Yes, it's a good point, but also we shouldn't have a democracy helmed by a fascist, narcissistic, pervert, weirdo. But here we are. Yes, here we are. More after a quick break.

Another podcast from some SNL late-night comedy guide, not quite, Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends, me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman, help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel, help an acapella band with their between songs banter. Who's the worst singer in the group? The worst? Yeah.

Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation. The yard birds, right? That's the name. The Harvard Yard. They're open to change. Do you have a name suggestion?

We're open. Since you guys are middle-aged, one erection. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Humor me. I need some jokes to make me seem funny. Run a business and not thinking about podcast. Podcasting, think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ads supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora.

And as the number one podcaster, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. Plus, only IHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business. Think IHeart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Call 844-E-Hart to get started. That's 844-8-4-I-Hart.

What's up, fam? Miss Isaiah Thomas. And I'm C.J. Toledano and our podcast Point Game is about defying the odds. Like LeBron heading into the playoffs without Luca and Austin Reed. And finding ways to win no matter what. He's the smartest player to ever play the game. His IQ is at a level that we've never seen before. And he knows without Luca and Austin Reeves, I got to manipulate the game.

We get a player's perspective on the challenges of the playoffs. I think Joker's going to be exhausted this series because when they don't have Rudy in the lineup, he has to really guard guys like Nas Reid. He has to guard Julius Randall. And then he has to give us everything he gives us on the night-to-night basis on offense. And when IT's friends stop by, like Quentin Richardson, we dive into some playoff history too.

Steve Nass would get that thing. That man, hell get the flying. He running up the court, licking his fingers why he got the ball. Like, after you go through a training camp with that, Isaiah, you figure it out real quick. Get your ass up and down the court, and you're going to get the ball.

So listen to Point Game on the, iHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Deanna Maria Riva, actress, mother, lover, and a Gen X woman walking through life one hot flash and hormonal crying jag at a time. You ladies know what I mean. I'll bet you a perimenopausal chin here you do. So let's talk about it. Join me on my new podcast.

How hard can it be with Deanna Maria Riva, where I call on my Gen X squads from Ohio to Hollywood as we navigate midlife's most fantastic BS. All of a sudden, I'd had hanginess happening on my own. I was like, what the hell is that? I was married when I had her, so I didn't even consider how empty that nest was going to be. Mood swings, night sweats, fupas, sex drive. Wait, what sex? Dating at 45.

How can it be getting naked at 50 with the new guy? That one's kind of hard. Well, that's lighting. They say we can't polish a turd, but we're sure going to try. So let's get blunt with laughs, tears, or tears of laughter, and dive into it, unfiltered and unbothered and ask, how hard can it be? I cannot believe I'm about to say this out loud in public. Listen to How Hard Can It Be with Diana Maria Riva as part of my Cultura podcast network available on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Let's get right back into it. Well, that really brings me to one of the pieces raised in the piece that we have talked about quite a bit on the show, which is how Democrats can compete with the vast shadowy creator and media ecosystem on the right. We know that when you see a right-wing or men's rights or Manosphere creator on social media, odds are that they're being funded by some big, wealthy, shadowy, right-wing organization, and you can bet your ass that they are not always disclosing the kinds of financial relationships or money that they might be being paid to say those things online. So the ethical question the piece raises, which I think is a worthwhile one, is should Dems be replicating the same questionable playbooks that folks on the right are expertly

utilizing. Because when it comes down to dominating the media ecosystem, it seems like folks on the left are bringing a tote bag of books to a gunfight. There has been so much talk of needing the Joe Rogan at the left, and a lot of the reaction to Lorenz's piece has been people saying, while if folks on the right are doing it, folks on the left need to catch up. And we can't really do that if it's going to be criticized and demonized like this when we do it. Honestly, I don't really have the answer here. I care quite a lot about transparency. and government and politics. I think that people should have information about whose money and what money drives our government and our politics and our democracy. And sure, I don't want Dems to

be unable to make use of the same tactics that the right is kicking their ass with, but I also don't like the idea of a government dominated by big money with no transparency. Essentially, it is one thing to say dark money groups should not exist. It is another to say dark money groups exist, but only the right should use them to further their ideology, because the right is really using them to further their ideology. They are really using them, and they are really using them effectively. It gives me no joy to say it, but they've kind of been crushing it with respect to dominating the narrative and taking over our democracy lately. Well, the article brings up the tenant media scandal, which I think that should have been one of the biggest stories of the year, but somehow it wasn't,

where it was revealed that right-wing media personality, like Tim Poole were being paid by Russia to make content. The Wired Peace reads, The structure of the program highlights the vast differences between how Democrats and Republicans attempt to amass online influence. Republicans have spent decades of building up a powerful independent media ecosystem,

though the right-wing influencer world is far from transparent. In September 2024, a federal indictment alleged the Russian state-sponsored network RT was covertly providing millions in funding to tenant media. A company working with major rightling influencers, including Benny Johnson, Tim Poole, Dave Rubin, and Lauren Southern. That story is so unbelievable. I can't believe it wasn't a bigger deal. If we lived in a sane country, there would have been intense fallout from that. There would have been outrage all around. People would still be talking about it. It would have been like a historical violation of national security. New laws would have been created to outlaw that very specific method for foreign countries.

to influence U.S. elections. But we did nothing. Absolutely nothing changed. And that's the media environment we live in. So, you know, and we've, it's been like this since the Supreme Court gutted McCain-Feingold 15 years ago. And so I also love transparency and think we should have so more of it. But it's just pretty hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of the left unilaterally disarming while our information ecosystem is just absolutely on fire.

Yes. And so I think that that question that you just brought up is what we're sort of not grappling with because we're talking about whether these individual creators are good or bad or shills or whatever and not examining the larger sort of dark money ecosystem at play here. I really hate that the resounding fallout has been around conversation around specific creators to the point where the dark money aspect of it and the information ecosystem aspect of it really feels like an afterthought. And you know, it's not like these creators wrote the chorus contract themselves. In fact, the piece includes text messages from a group chat

where the creators are pretty clearly not thrilled about a lot of the contract. It honestly sounds to me like these creators got kind of high pressured into signing a not great contract, which is something I know a thing or two about in my day. You know, one bit of the article says that chorus only gave the creators seven days to sign the contract and that they were not allowed to have their attorneys redline it, which is a major, major red flag for me personally. I would never agree to an exploding offer. If you are offering me something and you don't want me to take the time I need to fully examine it and think about it, that is not an offer that I want to sign personally. I also would never agree to a contract where I was specifically told I was not

allowed to show it to my attorney or redline it. You know, in this game, everything is negotiable. And especially as somebody who doesn't make a ton of money from any one thing I do, the ability to look at a contract and say, well, can we change this? Can we change that? Like, when you're not making a ton of money, sometimes that's the only real power or currency you have. And so personally, it does sound like, to me, chorus is operating under some shady contract dynamics. But now these creators are essentially being held to account for the details of this contract that they did not write. When I think the real entity on trial here should be the people who wrote the contract and our campaign finance system that allows for this kind of thing to be legal. Like don't hate the player, hate the game.

Yeah, and there's plenty to hate in the game of American campaign finance. There's plenty to hate there. But you're right, that doesn't really seem to be like at the center of the online contract. The online controversy that has been sustained for 10 days now, which is longer than most news stories, it has seemed like pretty personal about the specific creators, about Taylor Lorenz herself. And so it is interesting that the tenant media case where a bunch of right-wing influencers were caught taking money from Russia to promote pro-Russian points got comparatively so little

attention compared to this story about a handful of left-leaning. influencers. Yes. And I would say that if I had any kind of big point about this whole thing, is that I think that how we talk about this stuff online is completely broken. First of all, that article, I'll just say, in my opinion, it is no short read. I read it. You read it. This is going to be where you're like, oh, I regularly read 10,000 word articles all the time, just for fun. Like, would you categorize it as a long read? It was a long read. It was a long read. It was a long article. I wouldn't say that it was like redundant or like, oh, obviously they should have cut this, this and that. But it was a long article. I just, you know, kept reading and reading and there was more

to read. There was a lot to it. And so yeah, I do wonder how many people have like actually sat down and read the whole thing. I would wager to guess that a lot of people commenting on the article on social media have not actually read the whole thing. They are going from what the social media chatter has been about it online. Even after listening to this episode, I do think that people should read the article for themselves and make up their own minds about it because, you know, don't take my word for it, read the article yourself. But as somebody who has read the article several times and knows a little bit about some of the issues that it raises, I can tell you the online chatter about the piece has really misrepresented it regardless of where you fall on the

spectrum of agreeing with the piece or not agreeing with the piece. I saw people say, oh, this article explains why all the progressive influencers and creators all started fawning over Gavin Newsom at the same time, but the article never says that creators were paid to post specific messages or content online. I also saw people saying the article had been corrected or retracted. Wired did add an update to the end of the piece, but the article hasn't been retracted or corrected. Those are specific things that have specific meaning and they have not happened to this article. But here is my ultimate takeaway. I think even though this piece is about a kind of boring specific thing, you know, financial disclosures of political influencers, in my opinion, it is

written in a kind of way that gives the impression of a larger, more, nefarious thing happening. You know, that dark money is being used to control what big leftist influencers say online and thus our media ecosystem is being manipulated to push Democratic Party messaging. Now, that very well may be true, but this article does not paint that portrait at all in any specific way. And I get why readers would be inclined to ignore the less sexy but also important question of financial disclosures that I think the piece is actually trying to raise. Like who would want to focus on the difference between 501c3s and 501C4 tax designations when you could be speculating about whether or not this big influencer who was mean to you two years ago on social

media is a paid shill. I get it. I think the article can be interpreted in such a way that invites readers to sort of read between the lines and speculate that any of the frustrations that they might have felt with the Democratic Party is explained by this article, and that is just not the case. I think that's why it has caused such a stir online. The article has given people carte blanche to project their broader frustration with Democrats onto these creators. treating them as paid party shills, even though that does not even seem to be the point the piece itself was making. So to me, this piece is not really about individual creators and whether they're good or bad or shills or whatever. It is about the bigger system we all live in, a campaign finance system that lets billions of dollars move through politics without much transparency.

Whether it's Khoris, 1630 Fund, or the right-wing media machine, money in politics shapes the information we all see. online. And until that changes, we're going to keep running into stories like this one. That's why I think the real question isn't which influencer got paid what, but how do we build a media and political ecosystem that people can actually trust? Who do we trust to shape our politics? And what happens when even good creators get pulled into systems designed to obscure power instead of revealing it? We can't get caught in the weeds of internet drama and miss the bigger story, how money, disclosed or not, shapes the future we are all living in. So that is my attempt at summarizing what is going on with this article and some of the responses to it online. I would love to hear what folks think. This was

not an easy one. I spent quite a lot of time doing, having a big think and putting my thoughts together. So I want to hear what folks think about this article. If you read it, if you followed the reaction, what are your thoughts? Feel free to disagree with me. That's always welcome. I really want to know. How can folks get in touch, producer Mike? People can send an email to share their thoughts to hello at tangoity.com. They can leave comments on Spotify, although for this one, I don't know, maybe an email. Might get a little tweaky for the casual listener in the future who might be scrolling. But, you know, if that's where you want to leave your comments, go ahead.

I read all the Spotify comments personally. It's my favorite mechanism of commenting. Yeah, there's a lot of comments on there now. People seem to really enjoy commenting there, which makes sense. You're already there listening to the podcast. anyway. Yeah, I hate email. And so if you send an email, it's like a crapshoot of whether

I will read it or Mike will read it or Mike will read it and forward it to me. I find the Spotify comments to be a much more pleasing space. I don't know why. Oh, I didn't know you felt this way, but yes, Spotify comments. All right, that's where it's at

for you. And then you can also find Bridget on social. She's on Instagram. Bridget in DC. Same for TikTok and you can find there are no girls on the internet on YouTube, but you probably won't find a clip from this episode. I love that it's like, wait, are we now the shadowy organization? The secret shields. I mean, this is my personal opinions for you, me, and our good friends listening. Keep it between you and me. Yeah, just the listeners. The video

people, we'll give them something else, but they don't need to be part of this. They don't want to hear about pass-through organizations or fiscal sponsors. Yeah, they're notably disinterested in campaign finance. Well, thanks so much for listening, y'all. I will see you on the internet. Got a story about an interesting thing in tech or just want to say hi? You can reach us at hello at tangoody.com. You can also find transcripts for today's episode at tangoody.com. There are no girls on the internet was created by me, Bridget Todd. It's a production of IHeart Radio and Unbossed creative. Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer. Tari Harrison is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Amato is our contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If you want to help us grow,

rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. For more podcasts from IHeartRadio, check out the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, S&L's Mikey Day and headwriter, Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes.

Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Joey Dardano. And on my new podcast, Hope from a Hypocrite, I'll be changing lives, helping people in need with thoughtful solutions. Sike, I'm a comedian. I'm not qualified to give good a good.

advice. Join me and my comedian friends as we riff rant and recommend some of the most legally dubious advice known to me. This is Help from a Hypocrite, the worst advice from the dumbest people you know. Listen to Help from Hypocrite Wednesdays on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi everyone. I'm Cheryl Stray, author of Wild and Tiny Beautiful Things. I'm excited to share that I have a new podcast called Mind Over Mountain. In each episode, I interview athletes at adventurers and adrenaline seekers to discuss the inner landscapes that informed and inspired their extraordinary feats. So we too can better understand how to face our own seemingly

insurmountable challenges. Listen to Mind Over Mountain every Thursday on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. What's up, fam? It's Isaiah Thomas. And I'm C.J. Toledano. It's our favorite time of the year on our podcast point game, the playoffs. We're digging into the biggest surprises of the season. And I'm looking back on some of my greatest playoff moments. If we didn't talk ever again, I was crying. You just understood. That's how personal it got. Wow. Then after that game seven,

Marquis come in to you, he's like, you know I love you, dog. You know, it's all love. This was just playoffs. This was just basketball. So listen to Point Game on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.