Texas campaign finance filings reviewed by The Directory show payments exceeding the amount identified in a New York Times investigation into paid social media posts that allegedly lacked required political advertising disclosures.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gina Hinojosa's campaign reported paying $200,000 to a California-based digital marketing firm whose work is now drawing scrutiny over political advertisements that appeared on social media without identifying who paid for them.
The payments, identified by The Directory News in campaign finance records filed with the Texas Ethics Commission, exceed the $150,000 described in a New York Times investigation published Wednesday, October 28.
The Times reported that hundreds of social media posts supporting Hinojosa or criticizing Republican Gov. Greg Abbott were distributed through a paid content operation without disclosures identifying them as political advertising.
The controversy centers on an increasingly common campaign strategy: paying companies to recruit social media creators who publish political messages through accounts that otherwise appear independent of the campaigns benefiting from them.
Campaign Records Show Three Payments
Hinojosa's campaign reported three expenditures to Politiclip LLC, a Los Angeles-area company, between July and September.
According to the campaign's 30-day pre-election report, filed October 5, the campaign paid Politiclip $100,000 on July 13 and another $50,000 on September 8.
A subsequent eight-day pre-election report, filed October 26, disclosed an additional $50,000 payment dated September 29.
All three expenditures were categorized as overhead and described as newsclipping services, bringing the combined total to $200,000.
The New York Times reported $150,000 in payments to Politiclip. The Directory's review includes the September 29 expenditure disclosed in the campaign's most recent regular pre-election report. It is not yet clear whether the difference reflects the Times' reporting cutoff or another explanation.
The expenditure records establish how much the campaign reported paying the company. They do not independently identify every service provided or establish which individual social media posts were funded by those payments.
Hundreds of Posts, Unanswered Disclosure Questions
According to the Times investigation, screenshots of internal Politiclip records showed the firm had approved more than 550 posts supporting Hinojosa or opposing Abbott through the first week of October.
Some participating content creators were offered compensation based on views, including a rate of $3 per 1,000 views, according to the newspaper.
The Times identified numerous posts without disclosures indicating that they were part of a paid political advertising effort. Some of the same social media creators reportedly included paid-content disclosures when participating in campaigns elsewhere.
Hinojosa's campaign has disputed that the posts necessarily required such disclosures.
Campaign director Amy Friedman told the Times that the campaign hired Politiclip to increase Hinojosa's audience and name recognition but did not select individual creators or approve their posts.
The campaign's position rests on language in Texas law concerning political advertising authorized by candidates, campaign agents or political committees.
The distinction could become consequential for a state that specifically strengthened its political advertising rules to address paid social media influence.
What Texas Law Requires
Texas Election Code Section 255.001 generally requires political advertising containing express advocacy to identify itself as political advertising and disclose an appropriate sponsor.
The law also states that political advertising authorized by a candidate, an agent of a candidate or a political committee is deemed to contain express advocacy.
Under Texas Ethics Commission rules revised in 2024 and amended again in 2026, an exemption for certain social media posts does not apply when the person posting or reposting the advertisement receives compensation in return for doing so.
Other exceptions can apply, including certain posts linking to publicly available pages containing the required disclosure.
The central question is therefore not simply whether the candidate personally approved every post.
It is whether the communications legally qualify as political advertising requiring disclosure, whether the company acted as a campaign agent, and whether any applicable exception covers the posts.
Legal experts questioned the campaign's interpretation, arguing that the use of an outside contractor should not automatically remove disclosure obligations.
No formal Texas Ethics Commission finding concerning the specific Hinojosa posts has been established in the reporting reviewed by The Directory. The payments themselves do not prove an advertising-law violation.
A Broader Question for Texas Voters
The investigation arrives less than a week before the November 3 general election, when Hinojosa will face Abbott.
Political campaigns have long purchased advertisements, hired communications firms and paid consultants to distribute their messages. The emergence of large networks of social media creators, however, has complicated the distinction between advertising and apparently independent commentary.
A political message delivered through a traditional campaign advertisement generally identifies its sponsor. A similar message delivered through a personal social media account may appear to be an ordinary opinion, even when compensation is involved.
The Directory also identified coordinated-looking content supporting Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton, although its reporting did not establish that Paxton's campaign funded those posts. His campaign denied involvement.
That distinction matters. Similar messaging across multiple accounts does not, by itself, establish payment or unlawful coordination.
The underlying transparency question applies regardless of party affiliation.
When campaigns pay companies to distribute political messages through seemingly independent accounts, what information are voters entitled to receive about who financed the content?
Texas has attempted to answer that question through campaign disclosure requirements.
The Hinojosa investigation now raises the question of how those requirements operate when the money travels through a third-party contractor rather than directly from a candidate to a content creator.