Democrat Graham Platner has built his Maine Senate campaign on the promise of grassroots authenticity, no corporate PACs, just ordinary people powering a populist challenge to Republican incumbent Susan Collins. But his own campaign finance disclosures tell a different story. Since September, Platner has paid at least $36,437.94 to a Democratic consulting firm that maintains a stable of social media influencers who promote candidates and causes for pay, and at least one of those influencers has repeatedly urged his audience to donate to Platner without disclosing any financial connection.
The Washington Free Beacon reviewed Platner's FEC spending records and found the payments went to Be a Good Influence LLC, a Louisville, Kentucky-based firm commonly known as Good Influence. The company describes itself as "the trusted partner for measurable creator-led campaigns" and says it "bundles elite news and cause-focused online creators together to create a network effect" for its clients.
The gap between Platner's public image and his spending habits is the kind of thing voters in a purple state like Maine deserve to know about, and the kind of thing mainstream outlets have so far failed to report.
Platner's FEC filings show his first payment to Good Influence was $8,350.50, made in early September. The most recent disclosed payment, $4,114, landed on March 27. All told, the campaign has categorized these expenditures as "digital organizing."
Good Influence was founded by Stuart Perelmuter, a Democratic operative who previously served as communications director for former Kentucky Democratic congressman John Yarmuth. The firm is no small operation. Kamala Harris's presidential campaign paid it more than $600,000 in 2024. Democrats like Michigan Senate hopeful Mallory McMorrow and Pennsylvania House candidate Paige Cognetti have also sent money its way.
The firm does not list every influencer in its network. But its website features headshots of some "creators," including Qasim Rashid, a Pakistani-born left-wing activist and self-described "human rights lawyer" who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in both Virginia and Illinois.
Rashid has emerged as one of Platner's most vocal online boosters. Five days after Platner's first payment to Good Influence, Rashid published a Substack post crediting Platner with sending "the best fundraising text I've ever seen." Rashid wrote that his "jaw dropped" when he read the text, which accused ICE of kidnapping people, charged Israel with "genocide," and declared that "billionaires have taken over our government."
"I was astounded! A U.S. Marine veteran, running in a purple state, who rejects billionaire funding, condemns ICE raids, condemns fascism, condemns genocide, and acknowledges the fact that the status quo isn't working. Refreshing doesn't begin to describe how I felt reading his text."
Rashid ended that post by urging subscribers to "donate directly to Graham Platner's campaign today," whether "that's $5, $50, the max of $3500, or simply spreading the word by sharing this article." He did not disclose any financial relationship with Good Influence or Platner's campaign.
The promotion didn't stop there. In October, Rashid posted a brief "1 on 1" sitdown with Platner on TikTok, lobbing questions like "What happened to the Democratic Party of FDR?" and "Who's going to win the World Series this year?" Then on March 16, Rashid published a 50-minute podcast interview titled "Maine Senate Candidate Graham Platner on DEFEATING Susan Collins." He described Platner's campaign as "serious," said he was "excited about it," and encouraged listeners to "go to his campaign website, donate, volunteer, do what you can."
Rashid disclosed no sponsorship from Good Influence or Platner's campaign in any of these appearances. Eleven days after Rashid posted the podcast, Platner sent Good Influence another $4,114.
The pattern of progressive figures operating in ways that undercut their stated principles is hardly new. Controversies surrounding other prominent left-wing politicians have raised similar questions about accountability and transparency within the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
Good Influence does not require its influencers to disclose when they are being paid. Perelmuter himself explained the policy to Semafor in 2023, when the firm operated under the name atAdvocacy.
"Several of our creators put it on there anyway, we encourage them to do what they're comfortable with. But sometimes those tags mess up the algorithms, and they just don't get seen by as many people."
Read that again. The firm's own founder acknowledged that disclosure tags reduce reach, and left the choice of whether to be transparent up to the individual influencer. The incentive structure is obvious: skip the disclosure, get more eyeballs, drive more donations.
Federal campaigns are required to disclose payments to firms like Good Influence, which is how the Free Beacon found the spending. But campaigns do not have to disclose which specific influencers within a firm's network received money to boost candidates. Political nonprofits face even fewer requirements, they must only disclose their five highest-compensated independent contractors paid more than $100,000, meaning nonprofit political groups could theoretically fund social media content with no public disclosure at all.
Brendan Fischer of the Campaign Legal Center, a left-of-center watchdog, put the problem plainly to the New York Times: "You can't see where the money is coming from, and you can't see where it's going."
Platner has leaned hard into his grassroots identity. In October, he said he doesn't "need corporate PACs" because he has a "grassroots army." Two months later, he called his Senate run "the strongest grassroots campaign Maine has ever seen."
Mainstream outlets have largely echoed that framing without scrutiny. Politico cited his "grassroots energy." The New Yorker suggested his "grassroots organizing can beat the establishment." The New York Times published a piece last week on campaign payments to influencers that did not mention Platner at all.
None of these outlets reported his payments to Good Influence.
Meanwhile, other influencers on Good Influence's roster have also promoted Platner. Josh Helfgott, a self-described "LGBTQ+ advocate with 2 moms" known for his TikTok series "Gay News," published Facebook posts on April 8 and April 9 praising Platner's call to impeach "at least two" Supreme Court justices and highlighting a poll showing Platner leading Collins. Any corresponding payments to Good Influence from that period would appear on Platner's next campaign finance report, due in July.
A Good Influence spokesman told the Free Beacon that the firm "does not comment on its work for clients." Platner's campaign did not respond to a request for comment. Neither did Rashid.
The silence is telling but not surprising. There is nothing illegal about paying a firm to coordinate influencer promotion. The legal issue is narrower, whether the lack of disclosure by individual influencers violates FEC rules or platform policies. But legality is not the only standard that matters. Voters deserve to know when the enthusiastic online cheerleader urging them to open their wallets is part of a paid network, not a spontaneous convert.
That distinction matters most when the candidate's entire brand rests on being different from the establishment, on being the guy who doesn't play those games.
Platner built his campaign on the claim that he answers to ordinary people, not moneyed interests. His own FEC filings show he's paying a professional operation to manufacture the appearance of organic enthusiasm. If that's grassroots, the word has lost all meaning.
