Summary:
-
A Wired investigation revealed Chorus offered influencers money for pro-Democratic messaging under strict rules and privacy concerns.
-
Creators disputed the terms, calling the structure predatory and unethical, leading to concerns about transparency and democracy.
-
Progressive YouTuber Cohen refuted Wired’s claims, arguing Chorus didn’t control messaging and participants were encouraged to speak out.
A Wired investigation by Taylor Lorenz reported that a nonprofit called Chorus, backed by the liberal dark money group Sixteen Thirty Fund, offered influencers up to $8,000 per month to post pro-Democratic messaging—under strict nondisclosure rules, approval requirements, and limits on public disclosures.
The piece immediately sparked backlash online, with creators tied to Chorus publicly disputing Lorenz’s reporting.
“Seems Like a Take It or Leave It”
Screenshots obtained by Wired revealed that several creators were uneasy with the terms of the Chorus agreement. TikTok creator @womeninamerica admitted frustration, writing:
“Reading through this revised Chorus contract like: you win some, you lose some. I also think there’s at least 4 other things that should change … but the vibe I got from their email was that there would be minimal, if any, changes.”
Democratic commentator Aaron Parnas was even more blunt, responding:
“They aren’t going to modify it anymore. Seems like a take it or leave it.”
Other creators questioned the structure of the program altogether. YouTuber Keith Edwards called the setup “predatory,” arguing that instead of operating through a nonprofit middleman, donors should simply support creators directly.
The legal architecture of Chorus also drew scrutiny. In Wired, lawyer Graham Wilson explained the design:
ADVERTISEMENT
“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 … Your names aren’t showing up on … reports filed with the FEC.”
That admission sparked concern among academics and ethics experts. Don Heider, a journalism professor, was direct:
“If the contract for getting money from a particular interest group says you can’t disclose it, then it’s pretty simple, you can’t take the money.”
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Dubois, who studies politics and influencer culture, warned that arrangements like these raise broader democratic concerns:
“We are seeing influencers being pulled into these dark campaigns or shadow campaigns, where the legal aspect is murky at best.”
Brian Tyler Cohen: “Literally Nothing in This Statement Is True”
Progressive YouTuber Brian Tyler Cohen, who helped launch Chorus, released a video pushing back on Lorenz’s article.
View this post on Instagram
“I want to address a piece that Taylor Lorenz wrote yesterday from Wired, an initiative aimed at boosting Democrats. Online offers influencers up to $8,000 a month to push the party line; all they have to do is keep it secret and agree to restrictions on their content. Literally nothing in this statement is true.”
Cohen argued that the program was never designed to control messaging or dictate political loyalty.
“Chorus does not pay creators for content. Does not tell them what to say. It does not control who they talk to or work with, and there is absolutely nothing in the contract that could even be reasonably interpreted to say that we do. Period. Full stop.”
He also disputed Wired’s framing that Chorus operated in secrecy, saying participants were encouraged to speak about it from the beginning.
“On the literal first day of the program, it was made clear to all of the creators in our kickoff session that they were absolutely free to talk about Chorus, and we immediately followed up to confirm that in writing.”
Finally, Cohen accused Lorenz of ignoring her own ties to the same funding network that supports Chorus.
ADVERTISEMENT
“One of the largest documented donors to 1630 Fund is the same person funding a Meteor reporters in residence program, which Taylor Lorenz herself is a part of. And guess what? Her monthly stipend is $8,000 per month. So she’s criticizing an entity that is funded by someone that she is currently taking money from.”
Allie O’Brien: “This Whole Article Is Just… Very Misleading”
On TikTok, creator Allie O’Brien—who describes herself as a leftist critical of Democrats—argued the Wired piece misrepresented the program.
“Hello, I am a leftist that is known for being very critical of the Democratic Party, and I’m a member of a training program called Chorus… I have a slew of receipts to explain why a very fear mongering article that came out yesterday about how this program works is just very like inaccurate.”
@allie_202_ Hi friends! Comment any q’s you have 🙂 & do watch the full vid before commenting in case it’s explained towards the end! #politics #news ♬ original sound – Allie O’Brien
She pointed to her own record: “This is a video of me, literally yelling at the DNC, yesterday, over their refusal to endorse an arms embargo against Israel. I am not one to hold back on criticizing the Democratic establishment. I think I’m useful proof that that’s not what this program is about.”
O’Brien also shared excerpts of the contract: “Here’s the section of the contract… it says they want you to disclose to Chorus any engagement with government officials related to Chorus’s policy agenda. That contractor, that’s me, I’m the contractor, arranges through other means, right? So if I just arrange it myself… they’re literally acknowledging here that you can book it yourself… here it is clearly written that what you stated in your article was categorically false.”
Frustrated, she concluded: “This whole article is just written like, you know, this group, they have money and so they control them, and it’s just like, No, that’s not what’s happening.”
The Confusion Online
The fallout from Lorenz’s report has left audiences split. Wired presented contracts that seemed to bind creators to secrecy, while creators inside the program say the article exaggerated and misrepresented what Chorus is.
For some, this raises alarms about political funding and dark money. For others, it looks like a case of mistrust between journalists and creators in a polarized ecosystem.
