Democrats in competitive primaries keep fighting about corporate PAC money. It has opened up a muddy and sometimes performative debate.
The issue has played out in contested Senate primaries, where Democrats have pledged not to accept corporate PAC money to signal their support for campaign finance reform and show voters that they are not beholden to special interests. Among the Democrats seeking to distinguish themselves: Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton in Illinois, Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota, and both state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and former public health official Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan.
Corporate PACs, which raise money from their employees and distribute it to candidates, usually give in similar amounts to Republicans and Democrats. For several cycles, a growing number of Democratic candidates have sworn off the money, citing the outsized influence of business interests on politics.
But for many, the pledges not to take the money are mostly symbolic. Candidates who aren’t currently in office receive almost no corporate PAC donations anyway, as more than 99 percent of those funds have gone to sitting senators or representatives this cycle, according to a POLITICO analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission. And rejecting one specific type of donation doesn’t actually mean candidates can’t receive support from outside interests — often in much larger amounts than corporate PACs are allowed to send.
Corporate PAC money can also still end up indirectly supporting new candidates: A majority of Democratic senators receive the funding, as do official party groups, both of which donate to and otherwise help Senate hopefuls.
As a result, the escalating debate over corporate PAC money has comparatively little impact on Democratic candidates’ ability to raise money — but it has created an opening for heated attacks from all sides.
Stratton rejected donations from corporate PACs, but millions of dollars in support she has received from a super PAC has been the focus of a flurry of attack ads from Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), one of her top rivals who himself has received millions in super PAC support. Flanagan and McMorrow have both faced criticism for accepting corporate money in past roles, despite their pledges not to do so in their respective Senate races now.
While the push by some Democrats to reject corporate money goes back several cycles, even emerging as a point of contention in the party’s 2020 presidential primary, the focus in Senate primaries is newer.
For Democrats looking for any advantage in crowded races, rejecting the money carries potential electoral benefits. Polling shows the issue resonates not only with a Democratic base interested in money-in-politics reform but also with independent and Republican voters.
“Pledging to forego corporate PAC money is one way that candidates signal to voters that they reject business as usual in Washington and want to work to fix our broken campaign finance system,” said Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at Issue One, a nonprofit advocacy group.
Still, “even when a candidate rejects a PAC check, there are still ways for corporate interests to curry favor,” Beckel said.
The debate among Democrats comes at a time when corporate PACs account for a smaller share of funds influencing races. Corporate PACs face strict limits for their political giving, $5,000 per cycle, a number that has not changed in decades, even as individual giving limits are indexed to inflation. Far more funds now flow through super PACs — which candidates are free to criticize but don’t have to reject.
And the questions are unlikely to fade: The Democratic National Committee has sought to explore how it could limit corporate money, along with harder-to-trace “dark money” that flows through nonprofit groups, in the party’s 2028 presidential primary.
“I think it just shows this fundamental shift even inside the Democratic Party, that running on anti-corruption is no longer a niche position,” said Tiffany Mueller, president of End Citizens United, which backs Democrats supportive of campaign finance reform and has, since 2018, had candidates sign pledges that include a promise to reject corporate PAC money.
The group’s pledge this cycle, which includes several money-in-politics reforms, has gotten signers quicker than past pledges, Mueller said.
In Illinois, where early voting is already underway ahead of Tuesday’s primary, Stratton has made rejecting corporate PAC money a key component of her campaign in a three-way primary against Krishnamoorthi and Rep. Robin Kelly. The lieutenant governor, who was endorsed by End Citizens United, accused both opponents of benefiting from a “broken” campaign finance system.
“I’m the only candidate rejecting corporate PAC money, because my campaign is about the people of Illinois, not special interests,” she said in a statement.
Kelly, in an interview, defended her own record of accepting some donations from corporate PACs, saying that the funds over the years supported Democrats and never influenced her voting record. She noted the much greater flow of super PAC money supporting both of her opponents.
“When I came to Congress, I didn’t know my dues were going to be the level that they were. I didn’t know that I was expected to give money to my other colleagues, or people that wanted to be my colleagues,” Kelly said. “And frankly, the money I collect, that’s where a lot of it has gone through the years, paying dues to the DCCC.”
While Stratton has sought to carve out a lane as the reformer, Krishnamoorthi’s campaign has gone after her finances, with ads running on both television and digital accusing her of taking “corporate and MAGA money” and calling attention to a super PAC backing her. Krishnamoorthi’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Stratton has benefited from $11.8 million from a super PAC linked to Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, with additional support from the Democratic Lieutenant Governor’s Association. Meanwhile Fairshake, backed by major cryptocurrency interests, has spent nearly $10 million attacking her to help Krishnamoorthi.
The scrutiny on corporate PAC money in primaries comes as a majority of sitting Democratic senators continue to take those donations for their campaigns and leadership PACs. That includes several senators who have actively been endorsing in the primaries, including Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Ct.), who has endorsed Flanagan in Minnesota, and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), who has endorsed both Flanagan and McMorrow.
Corporate PACs can — and do — give larger donations to party committees. That has been a point of conflict in Minnesota, where opponent Rep. Angie Craig has hit Flanagan for corporate PAC donations accepted by the DLGA while she was its chair. The group is now backing her campaign along with Stratton’s.
Flanagan’s campaign has said she did not have sole decision-making power over the DLGA’s donors. In a statement to POLITICO, a spokesperson for Flanagan accused Craig of “trying to distract from the fact that she’s taken millions of dollars from corporations and special interests.”
“Peggy is the only candidate in this race to reject corporate PAC money,” the spokesperson said. Craig’s campaign declined to comment.
The divide extends from safe-seat races to the most competitive. In the Michigan Senate primary, which sets up a must-win open seat for Democrats looking to take back control of the upper chamber, the issue has already arisen in candidate forums. El-Sayed, who previously ran for governor, has sought to distinguish himself on the basis that he has never taken corporate PAC money.
“There’s only one candidate in this race who’s understood corporate money to be the central disease of our politics from day one when they ran in 2018,” said Sophie Pollock, a spokesperson for El-Sayed’s campaign, in a statement.
Rep. Haley Stevens, meanwhile, received donations from corporate PACs as a representative and has continued to for her Senate campaign. Her campaign spokesperson, Arik Wolk, noted she repeatedly voted for campaign finance reform and recently received an “A” grade from End Citizens United on its anti-corruption scorecard.
And although McMorrow previously accepted corporate PAC money for her state legislative campaign and leadership PAC, she has rejected it for her Senate campaign.
“As a first-time candidate, there were people who said, ‘We need to fight like the Republicans fight. If we don’t, we will lose,’” McMorrow said in an interview. “And I’ve learned through my time in the legislature that, you can’t talk out of both sides of your mouth, that people won’t trust you. And also, not only can we fund campaigns without corporate PAC dollars, but frankly, we need to.”
Politics
