EXPOSED! MAGA “Influencers” PAID OFF To Shill For Big Soda!
Mar 26, 2025
auto_awesome
Join comedian Kurt Metzger as he dives into Nick Sortor's exposé about MAGA influencers getting paid by Big Soda through "Influenceable." They unpack the strange coincidence of influencers praising unhealthy soda purchasing with SNAP benefits, revealing the manipulative tactics behind these endorsements. Kurt and his hosts critique the ethics of influencer marketing, question governmental impacts on dietary choices, and discuss the responsibility of public figures in disclosing their financial ties. They also touch on political disillusionment and social safety nets in this thought-provoking conversation.
Influencers are reportedly being paid to promote Big Soda's interests, raising ethical concerns about undisclosed corporate backing in public discourse.
The podcast highlights the controversy surrounding SNAP benefits, questioning the appropriateness of allowing unhealthy food purchases with government assistance.
Discussion critiques the influence of corporate money on public health policies, emphasizing the tension between profit motives and genuine health advocacy.
Deep dives
The SNAP Benefits Debate
The discussion centers around the benefits of SNAP, which assist low-income individuals in purchasing food, but raises concerns about allowing junk food purchases. Critics claim that allowing the use of SNAP for unhealthy items, such as soda, perpetuates poor dietary choices among vulnerable populations. This debate is framed against the backdrop of historical narratives, like the 'welfare queen' stereotype popularized by former President Reagan, which suggest that assistance programs are misused. The episode highlights that while the intention of SNAP is to help the needy, the actual application can inadvertently promote unhealthy consumption habits.
Influencer Manipulation
The podcast delves into the involvement of influencers in promoting the soda industry's narrative against proposed restrictions on soda purchases through SNAP. A company named Influencible allegedly compensates these influencers to disseminate talking points that align with Big Soda’s interests, often without disclosing their financial backing. This tactic is portrayed as an emotional manipulation strategy aimed at swaying public opinion, particularly among Trump supporters, by linking the soda debate to political loyalty. The concerns raised also emphasize the ethical implications of influencers acting as mouthpieces for corporate interests under the guise of grassroots debate.
Government and Public Health
The conversation critiques government reach concerning public health directives, particularly regarding food assistance programs like SNAP that dictate what can be purchased. It raises questions of individual choice and personal responsibility while highlighting the irony in allowing the purchase of unhealthy food with government funds. The podcast addresses past failed attempts, such as New York City's initiative to limit soda size, suggesting that similar interventions may meet resistance from constituents who value personal freedom. Ultimately, the tension between public health advocacy and personal liberties becomes a focal point in understanding government intervention in dietary choices.
Economic Interests and Health Policy
There is an exploration of the significant financial ties between major soda manufacturers and the SNAP program, with billions of dollars in soda sales linked directly to government assistance funds. The generation of profits from SNAP spending on soda is highlighted, raising issues of how this relationship influences health policy and the government’s responsibility towards public wellbeing. Discussion points indicate that many influencers and politicians may overlook the negative health impacts of such spending due to the economic benefits for corporations. This raises long-term questions on the ethics of allowing corporate profits to dictate public health outcomes.
Corporate Influence on Public Perception
The episode critiques the broader implications of corporate influence on public perceptions of health and welfare policies. It underscores the role of advertising and lobbying in shaping the narrative around nutritional choices available to SNAP recipients, portraying these narratives as overly simplified and misleading. Influencible's tactics, positioning against government regulation, are contrasted with genuine public health recommendations, illustrating a clear conflict between corporate profit motives and collective health concerns. This analysis prompts listeners to consider how financial incentives can obscure understanding of vital public health issues.
Investigative reporter and podcast host Nick Sortor reported on his Twitter page that the company "Influenceable" is paying MAGA influencers to support Big Soda. Sortor says he became suspicious when popular Trump-supporting pages like Clown World, Eric Daugherty, Not Jerome Powell and Ian Miles Cheong all posted remarkably similar tweets, each decrying the idea that SNAP (food stamps) recipients would be barred from using their benefits to purchase soda products.
Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger discuss Sortor’s exposé and why prominent figures online should always disclose if they are being paid to promote a certain product or viewpoint.
Plus segments on Bill Maher’s recent realization that the Democratic Party is cooked and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s tone-deaf comments on Social Security.
Also featuring Stef Zamorano!
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
