A New York Times investigation published on October 9 has brought scrutiny to campaign activities on TikTok in the ongoing Texas Senate race. The report details an interactive examination of how content on the popular social media platform may be influencing the contest between Democratic nominee James Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton, the incumbent Texas attorney general.
During a single 24-hour period last month, Times reporters collected 1,189 TikTok posts that specifically mentioned either Talarico or Paxton. The analysis revealed that Talarico was the subject of 70 percent of this content, while Paxton appeared in the remaining 30 percent. This tally included both favorable and unfavorable videos, indicating the frequency with which each candidate surfaced on the platform rather than public reception.
Within this pool of posts, the New York Times reported discovering "dozens of accounts" that were earning payments. These accounts allegedly received $4 for every 1,000 views on content promoting James Talarico. The finding was based on publicly available job listings and online records maintained by the creators themselves. Under this payment structure, a video reaching 250,000 viewers could compensate its creator with $1,000.
A group identifying itself as Frontier Media was cited as having written the job listings. The New York Times attempted to contact Frontier Media for comment but did not receive a response. In contrast, Talarico’s campaign has explicitly denied any role in these alleged payments. Campaign representatives informed the newspaper that they had not paid anyone to promote the candidate on TikTok.
The two campaigns operate with significantly different presences on the short-form video app. James Talarico's official TikTok account boasts more than 2 million followers, reflecting a substantial digital footprint among the platform's predominantly younger user base. Ken Paxton, while posting regularly, has a following that numbers only in the low thousands, according to the Times report. This disparity in reach is further contextualized by the age difference between the candidates; Talarico is 37, and Paxton is 63.
The New York Times report emerged shortly after Talarico returned to public view following a brief absence from the campaign trail. This disappearance had prompted online speculation and chatter regarding whether he had spent time at a mental health facility in Ohio. However, no confirmation of this claim has been presented in subsequent reporting on the story.
Additional aspects of Talarico’s public profile have also drawn attention. Talarico identifies himself as a Christian and is a member of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas. An article published by The Western Journal discussed Babs Miller, whom the outlet described as Talarico’s pastor. According to that article, Miller reportedly denies the virgin birth of Christ, disputes that Jesus died for humanity’s sins, and claims that the historical existence of Jesus cannot be definitively known. Furthermore, the church’s own website features a page on "inclusive language," which instructs readers to refer to God using "non-gendered" terminology.
Separately, the Republican National Committee’s research account on X (formerly Twitter) posted a clip featuring past remarks from Talarico. In the clip, Talarico discusses climate change, capitalism, and white supremacy. He is quoted saying, "only understanding the ways that all three of those oppressive systems work together are we going to be able to begin the process of dismantling them."
Neither Frontier Media nor James Talarico’s campaign has publicly commented on the claims related to the pastor’s alleged theological views or the RNC’s clip of Talarico’s past remarks. Frontier Media has maintained its public silence since the New York Times report was published. Talarico’s campaign continues to assert its lack of involvement in the alleged TikTok payments. Voters in Texas are set to decide the outcome of this Senate race in the upcoming November midterm elections. The various developments surrounding digital campaign tactics and the candidates' public images continue to shape the electoral landscape.
