MEMO: The Anti-Corruption Playbook Is Winning

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: End Citizens United

RE: The Anti-Corruption Playbook Is Winning

DATE: August 12, 2026

OVERVIEW

Following big wins for anti-corruption candidates who prioritized getting money out of politics last week in Michigan and this week in Minnesota, it is clear that candidates prioritizing reforming a broken political system and delivering for the people is a winning strategy. 

Last week, dark money groups spent over $60 million dollars trying to stop Abdul El-Sayed from becoming Michigan’s Democratic nominee for Senate. They failed.

This week, the same playbook failed again in Minnesota. Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan won the Democratic Senate primary after almost $20 million was spent against her.

The money was supposed to be an advantage for their opponents. But in both races, it backfired — becoming a negative strike against those candidates in the eyes of voters. El-Sayed and Flanagan spent their respective primaries running to get money out of politics and connecting the corruption in Washington to voters’ economic concerns.

Both El-Sayed and Flanagan are part of End Citizens United’s Unrig Washington program, which now includes more than 275 Senate and House candidates from across the country, from Frontliners to Red to Blue candidates to open safe Democratic seats. Unrig Washington candidates reject corporate PAC money, support a ban on congressional stock trading, and commit to ending dark money. When outside groups poured tens of millions of dollars to try and shape their primaries, they pointed directly at the money and told voters it was evidence of the problem the candidate was running to fix.

These victories in two marquee Senate primaries are the clearest recent proof points of a strategy End Citizens United has pushed Democrats to embrace for a decade. Candidates are strongest positioned to win when they tie kitchen table issues, like the economy or health care, to corruption in government. They have to demonstrate independence from the special interests they are running against, draw a clear contrast with their opponents, and connect political corruption to the economic frustrations voters experience every day. It is no surprise that voters consistently rank the economy and prices as their top concern, closely followed by cleaning up corruption in government as number two. 

These lessons will become even more important for Democrats in the toughest races over the next 80 days. El-Sayed and Flanagan showed the power of owning the fight against corruption, but nationally, neither party is trusted to clean up corruption or bring needed change to Washington. For an electorate that is demanding change and to clean up a broken system, this issue is still up for grabs, and the party that takes that opportunity will win the election this November.   

Money Out Of Politics, Money In Your Pockets

Abdul El-Sayed made rooting out corruption the defining issue in his campaign long before outside groups began spending tens of millions of dollars to defeat him. His pitch to Michigan voters was straightforward: get money out of politics, put money in your pocket.

El-Sayed argued that the two are directly connected. Washington keeps delivering for corporations and billionaires while families struggle with the cost of health care, housing, groceries, and prescription drugs because those interests have too much power over politicians. Getting money out of politics wasn’t separate from his economic agenda — it was how he explained why Washington wasn’t delivering one that supports working families.

He backed that argument with how he ran his own campaign. El-Sayed rejected corporate PAC money and joined Unrig Washington as soon as the program launched. His chief opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, accepted corporate PAC money, giving him a clear contrast over who each candidate would be accountable to in the Senate.

That contrast also drove ECU’s decision in the race. ECU had previously backed Stevens in her House campaigns, but endorsed El-Sayed in the Senate primary. The endorsement undercut Stevens’ ability to claim the mantle of reform and gave El-Sayed another way to demonstrate that he was the Democrat best positioned to fight for reform in the Senate.

Then the outside groups made that contrast impossible to ignore. $62 million poured into the race to support Stevens and defeat El-Sayed. AIPAC, corporate trade groups, billionaires, and other outside groups spent at an extraordinary scale, leaving El-Sayed badly outspent on advertising in the closing stretch of the primary.

 But El-Sayed didn’t retreat from the issue as the spending grew. He leaned further into it. In debates, interviews, and on the campaign trail, he pointed to groups spending millions to defeat him and asked voters to consider why they were so invested in the outcome. The more they spent, the more credible his case became.

Ultimately, despite an 11-1 spending disadvantage, El-Sayed won the Democratic nomination for Senate and is now in a dead heat with Mike Rogers. 

The Many Versus The Money

Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan framed the Minnesota primary around a different version of the same fundamental argument. Her campaign called it “the many versus the money.”

That idea was the basis of her entire campaign. It helped set the terms of the primary. She rejected corporate PAC money and joined Unrig Washington, drawing an early contrast with her opponent, Rep. Angie Craig. This became a dominant issue in the candidates’ first televised debate, where Flanagan emphasized that Craig takes corporate PAC contributions because those interests believed she would “do their bidding.”

ECU made an early and consequential decision in the primary. ECU had previously endorsed Craig in her House races, including in 2024, but backed Flanagan for Senate in February. Flanagan seized on the endorsement, invoking it repeatedly in debates and interviews as independent validation of the contrast she was drawing. For example, in a Fox 9 Morning Sunday interview, she said, “I'm the only candidate who’s supported by End Citizens United because I want to be beholden to Minnesotans and no one else.” ECU also helped elevate that contrast throughout the primary, including hosting a July town hall with her to call out the influence of Big Money in politics.

 The financial disparity between them was substantial. Craig raised $12.8 million, nearly twice as much as Flanagan’s $6.5 million. And as the primary intensified, outside groups poured in $17 million to back Craig, compared to $4.7 million for Flanagan.

But Flanagan didn’t make the race simply about how much money was being spent. She made it about who was spending it and why. She called out crypto, AIPAC, health insurance companies, Big Oil, billionaires, and dark money groups by name, arguing that voters should question why special interests were investing millions to influence the race. 

That put Craig in a difficult position. The more outside money came in, the more ammunition Flanagan had for a contrast that she had been drawing all along. In a Many Over Money Rally in Saint Paul, Flanagan made this exact argument: 

“There are some very powerful interests that are fighting like hell to protect the status quo. Super PACs and secretive dark money groups have already spent more than $15 million trying to defeat me, trying to defeat us, to buy this Senate seat. And that’s more money than has ever been spent before in a primary election in Minnesota. And you know what? It’s pretty gross. They’re spending a million dollars a week — or $142,857 a day to defeat us. They’re spending all of this money filling our televisions and phones with nasty ads and AI-generated lies. And here’s the deal: it’s left Minnesotans asking the simple question, who is spending this money and why? These outside groups aren’t spending millions of dollars because they care about how much your groceries cost. They’re doing it because they know Angie Craig will do their bidding, and I won’t.”

This wasn’t an isolated line from the campaign trail. Flanagan made the fight over the special interest money the throughline of her case, carrying it through every opportunity she had, whether it was in her ads, debates, or interviews.

 By the closing stretch, Flanagan had succeeded in making the source of campaign money a defining issue in the primary. Craig was no longer simply benefiting from the millions being spent on her behalf. She was forced to defend it. That was favorable terrain for Flanagan.

What began as “the many versus the money” had become the central choice of the primary. On Tuesday, after being outspent more than four to one, voters proved Lieutenant Governor Flanagan right.

Proof in Polling Numbers

The polling backs up what these campaigns understood from the beginning. Corruption cuts across the electorate in a way that few issues do. It’s not confined to one party or one demographic group. In April, 42% of battleground voters named corruption in Washington as one of their top concerns, just ahead of the cost of groceries and gas (40%). Among independents, that number climbed to 45%. Voters of all political affiliations rank it among their top concerns, and it is particularly strong among persuadable voters who will play a pivotal role in deciding battleground races.

That appeal is especially strong among voters who will decide control of Congress. In that same poll, independents preferred an anti-corruption Democrat to a standard affordability-focused Democrat 53%-19%, while moveable voters chose the anti-corruption candidate 56%-21%.

Broader polling also indicates that voters are keenly aware that Big Money is corrupting elections, and they want to see real accountability in their political candidates. A tracking poll by ECU Education Fund has repeatedly shown that over 90% of battleground voters believe corruption in government is a serious problem. And they are overwhelmingly more likely to support a candidate who backs reforms like banning corporate PACs, from 79% of liberals to 57% of Trump voters.

Voters know that corruption is the reason their lives are unaffordable. ECU polling has revealed that 75% of voters say corruption has a major impact on how much they pay for health care, and 65% say it affects the cost of groceries and everyday goods. Voters understand that corruption and affordability are directly tied.

It’s Not Just Michigan And Minnesota

El-Sayed and Flanagan’s wins, plus the polling trends, are an unmistakable signal to Democrats across the country about how they can win. Special interests are watching their power diminish and their money working against them because of anti-corruption messaging. It has been an overarching theme all primary season.

Illinois Senate nominee Julianna Stratton deployed the same messaging: “There was a lot of outside spending. It’s why I’m focused on making sure that we bring real campaign finance reform. This is something that I’ve talked about throughout my entire campaign. It’s why I was endorsed by End Citizens United.”

In Pennsylvania, Mayor Paige Cognetti has made the cost of corruption a central argument in one of the country’s most competitive House races, arguing that the rigged system in Washington and the rising costs families face are inseparable. Her refusal to take corporate PAC money reinforces that message, allowing her to make reform part of her economic case to voters.

 Rebecca Cooke, who also just won a competitive primary in Wisconsin, connects corruption in Washington to tangible consequences in her community, from rural hospital closures to economic pressures on family farms. Her refusal to take corporate PAC money reinforces that argument, positioning accountability to voters as a direct contrast with the system she’s criticizing.

And Unrig Washington has grown to be one of the largest cohorts of Democrats nationwide who are united behind one set of values. In many cases, it pushes candidates to match the integrity standards of their primary opponents — like in NH-01, where all six Democrats vying for the nomination have signed onto the program.

The breadth of Unrig Washington is just as significant as its size. Frontline incumbents, Red to Blue challengers, progressives, moderates, vulnerable Senate incumbents, and first-time candidates have all coalesced around a similar commitment. That includes 56% of current DCCC Red to Blue candidates and 15 Senate candidates.

Looking Ahead To November

The opportunity only gets bigger in the general election. Republicans are squandering their majority by coddling billionaires and corporations while families pay more for just about every basic necessity. The anti-corruption and economic arguments are now converging. Democrats must make every tax break, every giveaway, and higher costs part of the same story about a Republican Party that puts its wealthy donors ahead of working people.

After a primary season spent establishing their independence from special interests, Democrats are about to face even larger amounts of spending against them. Democrats have the opportunity to prosecute this case forcefully and turn a winning primary message into the argument that delivers Democratic majorities in November.

###

For 10 Years, End Citizens United (ECU) has been dedicated to combating the two biggest challenges facing our democracy: the corrosive impact of Big Money in politics and attempts to block access to the ballot box. Since its founding in 2015, ECU has had over 1.4 million donors with an average donation of just $14. The group has more than four million members nationwide and is one of the nation’s leading anti-corruption organizations.