This article is made possible through Spotlight PA’s partnership with NOTUS, a nonpartisan news organization that covers government and politics with the fresh eyes of early career journalists and the expertise of veteran reporters.
Democratic candidates’ call to get money out of politics is a central theme in the 2026 midterms, with dozens of Democratic incumbents and candidates pledging to reject donations from corporate political action committees.
But there’s a workaround that is enabling the flow of money from business interests into the campaign accounts of many Democrats who otherwise reject cash from corporate PACs.
Candidates, particularly those in the most competitive races, are relying on contributions from Democratic leadership PACs — groups formed by federal lawmakers to boost their party’s congressional candidates. And many of those leadership PACs receive significant donations from corporate PACs.
Daniel Lobo-Lewis, a co-founder of the Political Integrity Project, which grades candidates based on their financial transparency and anti-corruption commitments, told NOTUS the practice is “an issue.”
“No American voter, if you ask them, ‘Do you want corporations to be able to give money, have more power?’ will say yes,” Lobo-Lewis said. “That extends to leadership PACs in the same way” as corporate PACs.
Political entities established by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark and House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar are among the committees that have donated to “no corporate PAC money” candidates while receiving donations from corporations such as banking giant Barclays, pharmacy chain CVS and insurance company UnitedHealthcare this year. Jeffries, Clark and Aguilar did not respond to requests for comment from NOTUS.
One Democratic political operative who has worked on campaigns that chose to reject corporate PAC money, and who requested anonymity to discuss the decision-making process, said it’s actually relatively easy for Democratic challengers to reject corporate money.
“Very few corporate PACs are going to want to give money to a Democrat running either against a Republican [incumbent] or in an open seat to begin with, so not taking corporate PAC money should be an easy choice for Democratic challengers in any cycle,” the operative told NOTUS.
It’s harder to forgo leadership PAC contributions, the operative said, which can help candidates build support within the Democratic caucus and get to know their potential future colleagues.
Cait Conley, who is challenging Republican Rep. Mike Lawler in a New York district the Cook Political Report has deemed a “toss-up,” is one of the candidates who pledged not to accept corporate PAC money.
But nearly half of the contributions that Conley received from federal PACs came from committees that took corporate PAC money. Conley received $5,000 from the Jobs, Education and Families First PAC (JEFF PAC), which is tied to Jeffries, and another $5,000 from the New Democrat Coalition Action Fund, for example.
Both of those committees took contributions from corporations, including from defense companies such as Honeywell International and Lockheed Martin. Conley, who spent 16 years as an active-duty Army officer and later worked for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, has made national security a major part of her campaign messaging.
Conley’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment from NOTUS.
Rebecca Bennett, who is challenging Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-New Jersey) in another “toss-up” district, has also vowed not to accept corporate donations.
Federal filings show Bennett nonetheless took $5,000 from JEFF PAC and another $1,000 from BEEPAC, along with other leadership PAC donations. Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, created BEEPAC and has accepted contributions from those defense companies and others such as RTX Corporation.
Bennett has similarly spotlighted her experience as a Navy veteran and has pledged to help improve the Defense Department’s technology development to ensure service members “have the equipment and capabilities they need” if she is elected to Congress.
Bennett’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment from NOTUS.
Conley and Bennett are not alone. Other swing district candidates in similar situations include Paige Cognetti and Bob Brooks in Pennsylvania and Randy Villegas in California.
Michael Beckel, a money-in-politics expert at nonprofit Issue One, told NOTUS that there’s a big difference between taking corporate and leadership PAC money, since companies don’t have the same access to and influence over lawmakers when money goes through a leadership PAC instead of directly to a candidate.
“Forgoing corporate PAC money is breaking a point of connection between a company seeking friends and allies in Washington,” Beckel said. “If that money is flowing through a leadership PAC to benefit them, the original corporate donor isn’t getting any of the benefits of directly donating.”
And End Citizens United, the group that initiated these pledges in 2018, also insisted that taking money contributed by leadership PACs does “not, in any way, equate to accepting corporate PAC money.”
“As the organization that established the no corporate PAC pledge, we can unequivocally confirm that Democratic candidates are abiding by their commitment to reject corporate PAC money,” spokesperson Bawadden Sayed said.
Republicans still outpace Democrats when it comes to donations from corporate PACs, though the gap is narrowing. In 2024, the top 20 business and corporate PACs gave about 55% to Republicans and about 45% to Democrats, an analysis by public affairs firm Quorum found.
According to data from OpenSecrets, the nonpartisan watchdog group, contributions by Democratic leadership PACs to candidates are on the rise.. The committees gave $24 million to candidates before June 30 –– up from nearly $21 million by that time in 2024 and nearly $19 million in 2022.
Republican candidates receive more leadership PAC donations than Democrats, as well. As of June 30, Republican candidates had received $34 million in contributions from those groups, as opposed to Democrats’ $24 million.
Lobo-Lewis, whose group sponsors its own “anti-corruption” pledge for lawmakers and candidates, maintained that Democratic candidates should eventually go further when it comes to rejecting money from any business interests aiming to influence policy in Washington.
“That pool of money is definitely dirtied by the corporate money,” Lobo-Lewis said. “The first step in this anti-corruption fight is getting rid of direct corporate donations, and then going after the leadership PACs, joint fundraising committees and eventually the super PACs as well.”
An increasing number of Democratic incumbents in safer blue seats are also benefiting from leadership PAC donations as they avoid directly taking corporate money.
Some Democratic lawmakers who have taken the pledge say it can be “demoralizing” to run a campaign without corporate money ahead of what is expected to be the most expensive midterm in election history.
Rep. Josh Riley of New York, whose race the Cook Political Report has deemed “likely D,” has taken money from groups such as Blue Momentum PAC, associated with California Rep. Ted Lieu, and the Serve America PAC, affiliated with Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton. Those entities received contributions from companies including BlackRock, General Electric and Google.
“Josh Riley has never accepted a dime of corporate PAC money, and he never will,” senior campaign advisor Mauranda Evans told NOTUS in a statement. “His vote is not for sale.”
The Democratic operative who requested anonymity to talk about making these decisions said he thinks taking corporate money is completely different from taking leadership PAC money, but he expects the issue will continue to be a point of disagreement among Democrats.
“This gets to the root of a major problem in American politics, and that is the influence of corporate and dark money that we have,” the operative said. “Until we pass something at a federal level to get corporate money out, to get dark money out, that tension is still going to exist in one way or another.”