WASHINGTON ― The Democratic Party is in the middle of fierce intra-party debates over everything from health care to immigration enforcement to the War in Gaza, but the issue which could drive more primary fights than any other has as much to do with how candidates fill their campaign coffers as it does with the policy positions they hold.
Divisions between candidates over whether to take corporate PAC money are erupting in at least four major Democratic Senate primaries this year ― in Michigan, Minnesota, Texas and Illinois ― and in a host of fights for U.S. House nominations. Candidates turning down the cash, typically but not always progressives, are arguing their opponents’ ability to stand up to President Donald Trump and fight special interests is inherently crippled by their decision to take the donations.
“If you take money from certain people, it’s not like that money doesn’t come with strings,” said Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive who is running for Michigan’s open Senate seat while rejecting corporate PAC money. “I don’t have any strings attached to any corporations who stand to gain based on what I say or what I do.”
Those who take the money, however, are working to muddy the waters by pointing to other ways their opponents have benefited from corporate money, painting their opponents as holier-than-thou.
The fights have turned what was once a uniting issue for Democrats ― progressives and moderates alike turned down corporate PAC money during the 2018 blue wave midterm ― into another intra-party pressure point, one which progressives have been happy to emphasize. They argue the issue is more important than ever, especially with the tech and other powerful industries going all-in to win Trump’s approval.
“People are fed up with a system that’s rigged in favor of price-gouging corporations and understand the corrupting influence of money in politics is a key factor why politicians have failed to lower costs like health care and housing,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). “Rejecting corporate PAC money is a powerfully important signal to voters that you’re a Democrat with backbone who will actually fight back against special interests.”
Warren and other progressives have taken to pointing to rejecting corporate PAC money as a significant litmus test. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), another member of the so-called “Fight Club” of liberal senators specifically pointed to it as a reason for endorsing Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan’s Senate bid in Minnesota and progressive Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner.
Direct corporate donations to candidates are illegal under federal law, though corporations can donate to both super PACs and to nonprofits which engage in political activity. Corporate PACs, which are often controlled by a company or trade association employee, typically accept donations from executives and shareholders in a company and then distribute the cash to favored candidates.
Corporate PAC money makes up somewhere around 5% of the cash donated to federal campaigns each cycle, but turning it down has become a major symbolic measure for many Democrats and a handful of Republicans who argue it’s representative of a political system where corporations have far more influence than the typical voters. Some candidates who turn it down are unlikely to receive much of it in the first place.
Michigan is perhaps the state where the divides are sharpest, as shown by the arguments at a candidate forum hosted by the United Auto Workers on Wednesday. After a UAW member directly asked if the candidates were taking corporate PAC money, both El-Sayed and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow said they weren’t.
Rep. Haley Stevens, the most moderate of the three candidates and the preferred candidate of Democratic leaders in Washington, does not apologize for her willingness to take corporate PAC donations. She instead focused on her desire to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
“I’m not a millionaire, and I don’t own stock,” Stevens said. “I’m running my campaign in a grassroots way.”
McMorrow, who took corporate PAC money earlier in her career but now shuns it, gently called out Stevens for not answering the question: “We need to know who our next senator is working for.”
El-Sayed, meanwhile, made sure to highlight his consistency: “I’m the only person on this stage who has never taken a dime of corporate PAC money and never will.”
Monica Morgan via Getty Images
In an interview with HuffPost before he rolled out a plan last month focused on making sure municipalities benefit from the growing number of controversial data centers in Michigan, El-Sayed noted both his opponents have accepted donations from PACs linked to utility companies in the state who stand to benefit from increased electricity usage.
State and federal campaign finance records show PACs affiliated with three Michigan utility companies gave $19,500 to McMorrow’s campaigns for state legislature and $58,500 to Stevens’ congressional campaigns.
“They say ‘follow the money,’” El-Sayed told HuffPost.
McMorrow has said she took corporate PAC money early in her career because she thought it was necessary to win races ― even once arguing about it with progressives online in a now-deleted tweet ― but is turning it down now because “the corporate influence in federal politics is out of control.” Her campaign, meanwhile, is ready to highlight how Stevens, who has accumulated plenty of union endorsements, has taken cash from companies like Amazon and others with sketchy records on labor issues.
In Minnesota, the primary between Flanagan and Rep. Angie Craig has turned into a binary battle between progressives and moderates, with Flanagan eager to highlight support Craig has received from the cryptocurrency and oil industries.
“You can’t shake your finger and say, ‘I’m going to hold [the cryptocurrency industry] accountable,’ and simultaneously have your other hand outstretched and ask for a contribution to your campaign,” Flanagan said in an interview. “I think people have had it, and they want folks who are going to be beholden to the voters and not beholden to corporate special interests.”
But Craig has pointedly noted the Democratic Lieutenant Governors’ Association ― which can legally take direct donations from corporations ― raised extensive cash from business interests while Flanagan chaired it.
“Since I first entered Congress I’ve fought to clean up Washington ― from writing legislation to ban members from trading stocks to fighting to end Citizens United ― because our elected officials should be working on behalf of the people,” Craig said in a statement. “Meanwhile, Peggy Flanagan raised millions of corporate dollars as chair of the DLGA, including from the pharma, tobacco, and oil and gas industries and continues to lie about this fact.”
A similar fight has played out in Illinois where Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton has highlighted her refusal to take corporate PAC money in contrast to Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, a relative moderate and the front-runner in the race.
In turn, Krishnamoorthi has criticized Stratton for benefiting from donations from both the DLGA and Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a billionaire who has endorsed her and spent millions on super PAC ads supporting her.
“Lt. Gov. Stratton says she has a people-powered campaign,” Krishnamoorthi said at a debate in Chicago last week. “It’s powered by like two people, and that’s wrong.”
In Texas, state Rep. James Talarico has played up his own refusal to take corporate PAC donations in television ads but has not yet launched attacks on Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who has accepted corporate PAC money over the course of her career.
While it’s not unprecedented for candidates to squabble over corporate PAC donations in a primary ― Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez highlighted former Rep. Joe Crowley’s corporate PAC donations en route to her 2018 upset ― the issue was primarily a uniting one for Democrats in recent years. Both progressive and moderate candidates, many encouraged by the campaign finance group End Citizens United, rejected corporate PAC money beginning in the 2018 cycle as the party used an anti-corruption message to take back control of the House.
And many Democrats are still counting on it as a winning message in a general election, including 32 candidates running in the seats targeted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, as well as every candidate in key pickup opportunities for the party like Colorado’s 8th, Nebraska’s 2nd and Arizona’s 1st.
“We expect the 2026 midterms to look a lot like the 2018 midterms,” said Tiffany Muller, the group’s president. “It’s a change election ― anti-incumbent, anti-establishment, anti-status quo ― and rejecting corporate PAC money is one of the clearest and most credible ways for candidates to differentiate themselves. It not only motivates the base, but also helps win over critical independent and swing voters in the most competitive races. It’s good policy and good politics.”
But two Democratic operatives, who requested anonymity to speak frankly about divides in the party, acknowledged DCCC Chair Susan DelBene, a former Microsoft executive and chair of the moderate New Democrat caucus, was less enthusiastic about candidates rejecting corporate money than her predecessors. The DCCC did not respond to a request for comment.
Beyond the Senate primaries, progressives challenging Democratic House members in safe seats are also highlighting their rejection of corporate PAC money ― even if there’s very little chance a corporate PAC would donate to a primary challenger in a safe blue seat to begin with ― to argue long-term incumbents are out of touch with politics today. Each of the candidates backed by the progressive group Justice Democrats this cycle has promised to turn down corporate PAC money.
“The discontent with the corporate part of the Democratic Party is getting broader,” said Usamah Andrabi, the group’s communications director. “Voters are realizing a politician bought and sold by corporate PAC is less likely to stand up to the Trump administration.”
