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.
An increasing number of Democratic candidates are pledging to reject donations from business-linked political action committees in 2026 — a promise House Democrats say is easier said than done.
“I am deciding whether I’m going to committee or a meeting based on whether I have to meet with individual donors,” one House Democrat, granted anonymity to speak candidly, told NOTUS. “That’s fucked up.”
Democrats who take funds from corporate PACs “perform significantly worse” against a Republican candidate compared to Democrats who reject outside PAC money, according to a recent analysis from the progressive think tank Data for Progress. That leaves candidates facing what is likely to be the most expensive midterm election in history with few good options: take money from corporations and alienate the base, or spend all day, every day, dialing individual donors for dollars.
But the time constraints attached to calling and meeting individual donors can cut into lawmakers’ legislative responsibilities. Members who spoke to NOTUS say they or their campaign teams spend around 10 to 20 hours a week doing what’s known as “call time.”
“That call thing, calling a stranger in California or New York — it kind of sometimes feels a little demoralizing, right?” Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Illinois) told NOTUS.
“It’s less community events sometimes, right? Because the truth is that AIPAC, AI, and crypto want nothing more than someone like me to not be here, so if I don’t have enough money in the bank, they will primary me and it’s really hard to beat $30 million,” continued Ramirez, who said she also spends less time with family because of call time. “There are sacrifices.”
Rep. Dave Min (D-California), who said he spends 20 hours a week fundraising, split between weekends and little pockets of time while he’s in Washington, said it’s important that members are “seen as above reproach.”
“So yes, do I have to work harder? Yes. Do I have to spend Saturdays often fundraising instead of like, hanging out with my family? Yes. But that’s a decision I made,” Min added.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) told NOTUS that there are “racial and gender dynamics” that come into play in relation to fundraising.
“Women and people of color and people who come from different socioeconomic backgrounds don’t always come with the personal network of people who have thousands of dollars to give,” she said.
Corporate cash has ended in the hands of Democrats, including some who have sworn it off, as NOTUS recently reported. And the difficulties attached to rejecting business-linked money has made it so that some members start accepting it.
Rep. Emily Randall (D-Washington) did not take corporate PAC money during her six years in the Washington State Legislature or during her initial bid for Congress. Now, as a freshman House lawmaker, she does.
Randall pivoted to accepting cash from corporations immediately after winning her election in 2024. She recalled how she often had to prioritize making calls over knocking on doors when she was a first-time congressional candidate who’d sworn off corporate money.
“It was hard,” Randall said. “After the ’24 cycle, I was like, ‘Look, now I’m a safe seat member. My job is to raise as much money as possible to support frontline and Red to Blue members.’ I know what that was like as a member from a tough district in the Legislature, and I want to be a team player that helps make sure that my colleagues can keep their seats and that we can win the seats we have to win.”
The first House Democrat who spoke anonymously concurred. Members who pay dues to the caucus’ campaign arm to help vulnerable Democrats are “constantly getting the messages, ‘You need to give your full dues, you need to give your full dues.’ But it’s really hard to pay for your full dues if you don’t take corporate cash.”
Veteran and more high-profile Democrats don’t face the same issue.
Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts made the leap away from taking corporate money in 2018 after he was sworn in as the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee. Between January 2025 and June of this year, McGovern has amassed more than $750,000 in contributions. In 2018, the last election cycle he accepted corporate PAC money, he raised over $1.1 million.
McGovern, who is often captured giving provocative floor speeches, cited C-SPAN and social media as big drivers for his small-donor contributions, but admitted he has an advantage as a 15-term member with a relatively high profile.
“I guess it’s harder for a freshman, you know, when you don’t have an established platform. People outside your district, you know, may not know you as well,” he said.
A second House Democrat who spoke anonymously told NOTUS that while now their campaign operation averages around 10 to 15 hours a week, “as a first-time candidate, I was doing like 40 hours a week because you don’t know anybody and you just have to try to connect with other people.”
In contrast, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), a pioneer in the no-corporate-PAC movement, said she spends about two hours a month making fundraising calls, with the bulk of her donations coming from text and email campaigns. But, she added, that’s still a hassle.
“I hate it,” Jayapal told NOTUS. “I don’t like it. I don’t think I should like asking people to give me money.”
One of the priorities in the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ legislative agenda — especially if Democrats win the majority in November, is to pass legislation to limit super PAC contributions.
“There is still a structural problem,” CPC Chair Greg Casar told NOTUS. The legislation, he continued, is “one of the multiple ways that we can eventually just get big money out of politics.”
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pennsylvania), who leads the Abolish Super PACs Act and co-leads other campaign finance reform legislation, said: “Corporations recognize that this is a gap, a loophole in the system.”
“It does two things: It creates an overreliance on their influence in the first place,” Lee said of corporate money. “It also keeps people out. It keeps working class people out. It keeps women out. It keeps particularly Black women, the folks who are going to have the hardest time fundraising, in the back.”
“It is an imbalance that even now members who accept corporate PACs are starting to recognize,” Lee added.
Democratic lawmakers like Reps. Grace Meng of New York, Valerie Foushee of North Carolina and Mike Thompson of California, who accept corporate PAC money, are listed as co-sponsors for her bill.
The makeup of the district can also have a direct impact on lawmakers’ fundraising ability.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California), who represents the heart of Silicon Valley, touted the need for public financing “so that we reduce that influence” in elections. But he said he sympathizes with his colleagues who do not represent wealthy districts like he does and have a harder time fundraising.
“I don’t come at it with some pretense that I’m sort of morally superior to my colleagues when I have access to a lot more wealthy donors than they do,” he told NOTUS.
For members in House Democratic leadership, this is just part of the job. Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois, a recruitment co-chair for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee who does not take corporate money, put it simply: “We always have to make fundraising calls. We always have to go travel and do events. I have to go and literally get the money.”
“We are the stars. We are the talent. We have to go get this money to sustain the campaign,” she told NOTUS.