Unauthorised Attack Ads Appear In VUWSA Election

 Psi/Andrew Booth

A series of anonymous attack ads targeting candidates in the VUWSA election have appeared on Instagram in recent weeks, with some using AI-generated imagery and falsely claiming to have been authorised by current candidates. Salient has identified links between two accounts involved in the campaign, @studentlobbyist and @vuwsagirl. Separately, @vuwsagirl has been linked to an earlier advertisement associated with the Save Our Clubs campaign. Save Our Clubs says a former associate retained access to a dormant Instagram account and later used it, without the group’s knowledge or authorisation, to publish election advertisements.

The first account, @studentlobbyist, came to Salient’s attention earlier this year after it paid to promote an advertisement targeting 2026 VUWSA president Aidan Donoghue.

The ad featured a monochrome image of Donoghue superimposed over the Beehive alongside the words “DON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN.” The photograph of Aidan appears to have been taken from an RNZ article, “Uni students skipping meals and classes to keep on top of bills,” published in August.

The ad criticised Donoghue’s record on promises made during his election campaign. He did not respond to a request for comment before this article went to print.

@studentlobbyist later published another ad in a similar style, this time featuring presidential candidate Ethan Rogacion beneath the headline “IF ETHAN ROGACION WINS, YOU LOSE.”

The image appears to have been AI-generated from a photograph used on Rogacion’s LinkedIn profile. Two publically available AI-image detectors assessed it as having a high probability of being AI-generated.  

The advertisement described Rogacion as someone who “wants your vote ... for his LinkedIn.” But unlike the earlier advertisement, it also included a very small statement at the bottom of the image, claiming it had been authorised by fellow presidential candidate Charlotte Lawrence.

Lawrence told Salient she had nothing to do with the advertisement. “I want to make it clear that I have nothing to do with these recent accounts, and I did not authorize them,” she said. 

“I'm horrified that someone is pretending that I authorized such horrible content. It goes completely against everything that I stand for. Along with the team at VUWSA, we have made multiple complaints to Meta, and we have filed an ASA complaint. It looks like Meta has taken down the one that says, ‘Authorized by Charlotte Lawrence.’

“The VUWSA campaigning period should be centered around manaakitanga and transparency. These accounts are harmful, they are against defamation laws, and I sincerely hope the person creating them immediately stops.” 

While @studentlobbyist has since been deleted, the advertisement targeting Rogacion was later cross-posted to a new account, @vuwsa.aislop, which remains active.

A second false endorsement

On the evening of 10 September, @studentlobbyist posted another graphic, this time involving campaigns officer candidates Blake Burrows, Pascal Buda, and Leonora Vejlebo.  

The post was not a paid advertisement and did not include an authorisation statement, but clearly endorsed Vejlebo. Its caption read: “Vote Lenora Vejlebo for Campaigns Officer!”  

The graphic presented the three candidates in a traffic-light-style design and differed markedly from the accounts previous ads. None of the advertisements seen by Salient resemble the candidates’ official campaign material around campus.

Vejlebo responded on her public Instagram account that evening.

“FYI - I am in no way associated with this account, and incredibly disappointed to see my image used in this way without my consent,” she wrote. 

“Excited for a fair race ahead with Blake and Pascal; we’re all united in our hope for a better university, and I have massive respect for the both of them.”

The following morning, a new account called @vuwsagirl posted the same graphic as a paid advertisement. This version claimed it was “authorised by Lenora Vejlebo.”

Vejlebo and Lawrence are campaigning together this year and held a joint launch on 9 September. At that stage, the ads Salient had identified from @studentlobbyist and @vuwsagirl exclusively targeted candidates contesting the campaigns officer and president races in which Vejlebo and Lawrence were standing. Vejlebo reiterated to Salient that she had no involvement.

“I am not affiliated with the @studentlobbyist or the new @vuwsagirl accounts that have been posting campaign ads using my image to discredit other candidates,” she said. 

“This sort of conduct goes against the spirit of the election.”

Both Vejlebo and Lawrence told Salient they had contacted other candidates featured in the ads to make clear they had not authorised them. Lawrence said she became aware of the ad bearing her name on the evening of 9 September, after several people sent it to her. She said she had initially followed @vuwsagirl without knowing what content it would publish, but unfollowed and blocked the account after becoming aware of the ads.

Vejlebo said she had never engaged with @studentlobbyist, although she had previously seen a story claiming an advertisement had been authorised by Lawrence.

“This was definitely not the case,” she said. “Both Charlotte and I want to foster a collaborative and friendly atmosphere throughout the election period and race, and would never condone such an ad.”

Vejlebo later told Salient that @vuwsagirl had viewed one of her Instagram stories.

“American-style Super PAC attack politics”

Salient attempted to contact the person behind @studentlobbyist before the account was deleted, but received no response.  

The owner of @vuwsagirl did respond, providing an anonymous Proton Mail address for further contact. Salient will refer to the person or people behind the account and email address as “Smeek.”

Asked whether @vuwsagirl and @studentlobbyist were connected, Smeek declined to answer.

“I'm not going to get into the mechanics of Instagram accounts or ads.”

They were more forthcoming about their reasons for becoming involved in student politics.

“For decades, student politics in New Zealand has been a joke,” Smeek said. “... It is an establishment spending millions in compulsory levy money, insulated from any real scrutiny or accountability.

“... If you want to play national-level politics with students' money and futures, you don't get kid gloves.

“... What New Zealand student politics needs is raw, unapologetic, American-style Super PAC attack politics. That is what this is.”

Asked what they meant by “Super PAC” campaigning, Smeek said student elections had been treated as “popularity contests run on polite talk and zero accountability.”

“American-style Super PACs work because they bypass the sanitised, scripted mouthpieces and force real contrasts into the open,” they said.

“We make no apologies for bringing aggressive, results-driven scrutiny to VUWSA elections.”

Asked why particular candidates had been targeted, Smeek called Rogacion “the Kelburn establishment” and said Vejlebo was “the only person on that ballot with the backbone to kick down doors and scare the university into action.”

Candidates respond

After 11 September, @vuwsagirl published several further posts, including an AI-generated video alleging Rogacion’s campaign had been funded by “corrupt insiders and radical foreign donors,” and that he had presided over cuts to campus security.  

Rogacion told Salient he was disappointed by the campaign.

“Given that this is the most contested VUWSA election in recent history, with a wide range of high-quality candidates, I am disappointed to see this sort of engagement with the election,” he said.

“It is important for this election to be about the quality of ideas that candidates are putting on the table, and the way that we engage with tauira and understand their needs—not the amount of AI slop that someone can generate.

“I encourage everyone to engage with this election in good faith, so that VUWSA's 2027 Executive reflects the needs and interests of students.”

Rogacion rejected several claims made in the ads, noting that campus security and student fees sit outside of the responsibilities of his VUWSA position and, in some cases, VUWSA itself. 

He also made light of the corruption allegations. 

“If someone is paying anyone in student politics off to execute their evil agenda, they need to find a better use for their money.”

Buda told Salient he found the ads “a bit disheartening,” but had received a message from Vejlebo telling him she was not behind them.

He considered the account a troll and said it was strange to see its material being promoted as paid advertising, but was not particularly concerned about its effect on the election.

“I don’t think people get their policies from Instagram spam,” he said.

Burrows said he “saw the ad pretty quickly,” and that the other candidates contacted him to assure him they had not been involved.

He took a more light-hearted view, saying “any publicity is good publicity” and that the advertisement made the campaign feel “a lot more real.” He did not, however, endorse Smeek’s call for Super PAC-style campaigning.

How far did the ads travel?

On 14 September, Salient spoke to 26 students on Kelburn Kelburn campus to get a rough indication of the ads’ reach. 

Only three said they had seen advertisements directly relating to the VUWSA election. None of those three said the ads were likely to have a significant effect on how they voted. 

Salient also tested the approximate cost of promoting comparable material using an existing business Instagram account belonging to one of the writers. 

For an audience aged 18 to 65 within five kilometres of Kelburn Parade, targeted using interests including higher education, students’ unions, and politics, Instagram estimated that a budget of $3 a day could produce between 4606 and 8554 impressions.

Meta’s recommended budget of $15 a day produced an estimated 21,132 to 39,432 impressions for the same audience.

These estimates do not establish how much the anonymous advertiser actually spent or how many people saw the election ads. They do, however, indicate that paid Instagram advertising capable of reaching thousands of accounts can be purchased relatively cheaply.

Link to Save Our Clubs

While speaking to students on 14 September, Salient was shown another advertisement targeting former VUWSA candidate Cam Dickson. The attack ad targeted Dickson over his tenure as Clubs and Activities Officer, despite him contesting this year’s election for Treasurer/Secretary.

The ad was similar in style to earlier @studentlobbyist material and linked to the Save Our Clubs campaign.

A student, who asked not to be named, located and screenshotted the advertisement’s details. Those details associated the ad with an advertiser using the name “vuwsagirl.”

Salient subsequently located the advertisement record and found that the Save Our Clubs ad and later election advertising posted by @vuwsagirl were linked, through the URL recorded by Meta, to the same now-disabled advertiser account.

Dickson described the campaign as “concerning.”

“The fact that members of the executive can’t speak publicly to student issues without giving ammunition to those who will harass them with AI tools, and the fact that students can’t campaign for a role without fearing attack ads is sad, to say the least.”

On the evening of 14 September, Salient contacted the email address provided by Smeek, the Save Our Clubs’ press email and web form, and the student email address of Save Our Clubs spokesperson Arie Joe. 

Joe responded through the Save Our Clubs email address on behalf of the campaign. 

He said an internal review had identified an unnamed person formerly associated with the campaign who had retained access to a “legacy Instagram account” that was no longer actively used by the campaign. 

According to Joe, the account was later renamed and used without the Save our Clubs’ knowledge or authorisation, to publish advertisements relating to the VUWSA election. He said the campaign subsequently regained control of the account and deactivated it.

Joe later provided a further clarification about the timing.

Asked about a paid advertisement which had appeared approximately two weeks earlier, linked directly to the Save Our Clubs website and used material consistent with the campaign’s platform, Joe said it had also been placed by the same person.

He said the advertisement had been “scheduled in advance by the same former individual before their departure, and set to run some weeks later.”

This meant that, according to Save Our Clubs’ account, the person responsible for the later election advertising had still been associated with the campaign when at least one Save Our Clubs-linked advertisement was scheduled.

Joe did not identify that individual to Salient.

He maintained that Save Our Clubs had “no prior knowledge” of the advertisement and that it had not been commissioned, funded or approved by the campaign. He also said Save Our Clubs had never run paid social-media advertising of any kind. 

Several sources, speaking independently to Salient, have alleged that Joe himself was involved with the @studentlobbyist and @vuwsagirl accounts. Salient has not independently established that those allegations are correct.

Salient separately contacted Joe directly to ask whether he was involved with either account. He did not respond to those questions before publication, although he continued to respond to inquiries sent through the Save Our Clubs email address in his capacity as the campaign’s spokesperson.

On the night of 16 September, after @vuwsagirl had been deactivated, the same Save Our Clubs-linked advertisement also appeared on Reddit from an account named FluffyFinish.

Salient has not established who controls the Reddit account or whether it is connected to the people behind @studentlobbyist or @vuwsagirl.

Joe told Salient on 16 September that the information had been passed to VUWSA and that the person involved had ceased to be associated with Save Our Clubs approximately one month earlier.

A VUWSA spokesperson confirmed that they had received the email. 

VUWSA condemns campaign

VUWSA returning officer Em Maguire and chief executive Matthew Tucker both condemned the advertisements. “... If someone wants to argue that students' associations are bad, unnecessary, ineffective or should be ran differently, then go for it—we welcome that conversation,” Maguire said. 

“However, it is actively concerning that this isn't just criticism of VUWSA. These accounts are using individual candidate names and images, often within AI-generated imagery, to create perceived endorsements and campaign messages. 

“We have checked with the candidates involved and can confirm that none of them have been creating, authorising, endorsing, funding or placing any of the advertising we have seen.

“This is our line; and this is what we are actively concerned about. If people want to critique VUWSA, they're welcome to, but individual student candidates should not have their identities co-opted, targeted or used to imply endorsement for things they don't agree to or with.” 

Tucker said VUWSA had submitted reports to Meta, the Advertising Standards Authority, and Netsafe.

“I also don’t want us to spend too much time and energy on a weird anonymous social media campaign,” he said. 

“To me, there is a bigger question here about the use of AI and the controls on platforms like Instagram that can allow people to run this kind of activity with very little transparency about who is behind it.

“What I would say to the person doing this is: please think about the impact you might be having on the students whose names and images you are using. These are genuine, impressive students who have put themselves forward to represent their peers. They are actual people, not props for someone else’s campaign. Please do better and be better.”

The @vuwsagirl account was deleted on the evening of 14 September. The advertisements appear to have since been cross-posted to @vuwsa.aislop, which remained active when Salient went to print on 17 September.

A timeline: 

Earlier this year: @studentlobbyist published an attack ad targeting Aidan Donoghue. Around the same period, an ad targeting Cam Dickson is published and linked to Save Our Clubs.

Week of 7 September: @studentlobbyist begins publishing election material falsely claiming to have been authorised by candidates.

9 September: An ad targeting Ethan Rogacion claims to have been authorised by Charlotte Lawrence.

10 September: @studentlobbyist posts a graphic involving campaigns officer candidates Pascal Buda, Blake Burrows, and Leonora Vejlebo. It endorses Vejlebo but does not contain an authorisation statement.

11 September: @vuwsagirl publishes the same campaigns officer graphic as a paid Meta advertisement, this time claiming to have been authorised by Vejlebo. @studentlobbyist is removed from Instagram.

11–13 September: Salient obtains contact details for the person behind @vuwsagirl and receives answers to written questions.

14 September: Salient identifies a link between the advertiser account used by @vuwsagirl and an earlier Save Our Clubs advertisement targeting Cam Dickson. Salient contacts the account owner, Save Our Clubs and spokesperson Arie Joe.

Evening of 14 September: @vuwsagirl is deactivated. Arie Joe says a former associate had retained access to a dormant Instagram account, renamed it and used it to publish the VUWSA election advertisements without the campaign’s knowledge or authorisation.

16 September: Joe says the unnamed individual ceased to be associated with the campaign approximately one month earlier. Joe clarifies that the same individual had scheduled an earlier Save Our Clubs-linked advertisement before leaving the campaign, while maintaining it was unauthorised. 

Evening of 16 September: The same advertisement appeared on Reddit from an account using the name FluffyFinish.

17 September: @vuwsa.aislop, which has cross-posted some of the material, remains active as Salient goes to print.