When Donors Meet Decision-Makers: The Fight Over Political Influence In The US And India

As the United States approaches its November 3 midterm elections, corruption has emerged as a prominent campaign issue, cutting across concerns about political ethics, corporate influence and household expenses. Candidates from both parties are promising greater accountability, even as they accuse their opponents of using public office or government resources for private and political gain.

The scale of public concern is evident in recent polling. A University of Massachusetts Amherst survey conducted from August 21 to 26 found that 97% of respondents believed there was at least some corruption in the federal government, including 75% who said there was a great deal. A separate Brennan Center for Justice survey found that 92% considered corruption in politics and government a major problem.

More recently, a Financial Times–Focaldata survey conducted from October 16 to 18 found that 69% of registered voters were concerned about corruption, self-dealing and conflicts of interest in the Trump administration.

These findings indicate the extent to which questions about the use of political power have entered the electoral debate.

The issue also extends beyond allegations of bribery or illegal payments. Increasingly, the debate concerns who benefits from government decisions, whether public office creates opportunities for private enrichment, and whether wealthy donors and corporations have disproportionate influence over policy.

Why Are Voters Linking Corruption With The Cost Of Living?

The connection between corruption and household expenses has given the issue a wider electoral appeal. Rather than treating government ethics as a separate question of political conduct, campaigns are presenting it as part of the debate over inflation, public spending and corporate power.

A September 9 survey by Navigator Research found that 81% of Americans believed government corruption was raising costs, including 48% who felt strongly about the connection. Respondents associated higher costs with government waste, misuse of taxpayer money and politicians protecting monopolies and large corporations accused of price gouging.

The economic concerns are independently significant. A Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted in August found that 47% of registered voters considered the cost of living the single most important factor in deciding their midterm vote. In October, 54% blamed the Trump administration or congressional Republicans for rising prices.

The figures capture how voters understand the relationship between political decisions and their everyday expenses.

The political argument is that decisions about competition, regulation, government contracts and public expenditure can benefit particular interests at the expense of the wider public. When voters believe access to political power is shaped by private financial interests, questions of ethics become questions of economic fairness.

This allows candidates to connect abstract concerns about governance with issues voters encounter directly, from the prices they pay to the use of their taxes.

How Are Both Parties Using Anti-Corruption Politics?

The issue has become a substantial part of campaign advertising. A Washington Post analysis of more than 8,000 political advertisements in competitive congressional and gubernatorial races found that government ethics and corruption ranked second among issues attracting campaign advertising expenditure. Democrats spent more than $306 million on such advertisements, nearly twice the Republican expenditure.

Democratic candidates have frequently linked allegations of self-enrichment, billionaire influence and corporate interests to President Donald Trump's administration and Republican opponents.

James Talarico, the Democratic candidate in the Texas Senate race, has made anti-corruption reform central to his platform. He says he has not accepted corporate political action committee (PAC) money and supports banning super PACs and corporate PACs, restricting lawmakers' stock trading and increasing government transparency. His campaign has also attacked Republican opponent Ken Paxton over corruption allegations. Those accusations must be distinguished from the record of Paxton's impeachment proceedings: the Texas Senate acquitted him.

In New Hampshire, Democratic Senate candidate Chris Pappas has criticised Republican opponent John Sununu over alleged ties to corporate interests. Pappas has highlighted his opposition to corporate PAC money and support for the DISCLOSE Act, which seeks greater transparency in political spending.

Republicans have also adopted accountability messaging. Florida congressional candidate Scott Singer has promised to cut waste, fraud and abuse, and supports a ban on stock trading by members of Congress.

But campaign advertisements can themselves become instruments of partisan attacks. A September advertisement by the Republican-aligned Senate Leadership Fund accused Democratic Senate candidate Troy Jackson in Maine of corruption and using public resources to benefit his family. The advertisement omitted important context and that the public record did not clearly establish the corruption allegations.

The distinction matters: an accusation in a campaign advertisement is not equivalent to an investigation, a judicial finding or proof of unlawful conduct. Anti-corruption rhetoric can increase scrutiny of public officials, but it can also be used to discredit opponents without establishing wrongdoing.

What Are The Allegations Of Self-Enrichment And Conflicts Of Interest?

The debate has also focused on allegations concerning Trump's family businesses, including cryptocurrency ventures, foreign business partnerships and investments in companies seeking government contracts.

Critics argue that these activities create potential conflicts between private financial interests and presidential decision-making. The White House and Trump Organization have denied wrongdoing, saying the president does not personally direct the investments and that his business interests are managed by his children.

The allegations raise a broader question about the boundaries between public office and private wealth. An apparent conflict of interest can undermine public confidence even where a legal violation has not been established. Conversely, the existence of a business relationship or an increase in an official's reported wealth does not, by itself, prove corruption.

Financial disclosure rules are one mechanism for examining these questions. The US Office of Government Ethics published the certified annual financial disclosures of Trump and Vice-President JD Vance on June 30, 2026. Members of Congress are also subject to financial disclosure requirements.

Under the STOCK Act, senators and specified senior staff must disclose certain securities transactions exceeding $1,000. The reporting deadline is generally the earlier of 30 days after becoming aware of a transaction or 45 days after it occurs.

Disclosure, however, is not the same as prevention. It can make financial interests more visible, but it does not automatically eliminate the possibility that official decisions could benefit an office-holder's private interests. This distinction helps explain the renewed demand for restrictions on lawmakers' stock trading.

Which Reforms Are Being Proposed In The US?

The reform debate has focused on two areas: lawmakers' financial activities and the influence of money in elections.

The Stop Insider Trading Act sought to restrict stock trading by members of Congress and their spouses and dependants. The House considered the legislation in July, but a Senate motion to begin consideration failed on September 30, receiving 53 votes in favour and 47 against. The measure fell short of the 60 votes required for cloture and did not become law.

Another proposal, the REVEAL Act, introduced in September, seeks to prohibit certain political officials from owning or trading stocks and participating in prediction-market trading.

On campaign finance, the DISCLOSE Act seeks greater transparency about the sources of money used for political campaigns and advertisements. The debate takes place within a system that permits substantial spending by outside political groups.

The US Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission ruling allowed corporations and labour unions to make independent political expenditures. It did not remove the prohibition on direct corporate contributions to federal candidates. Super PACs, meanwhile, can accept unlimited contributions for independent expenditures, subject to applicable restrictions and reporting requirements.

The sums involved illustrate the scale of the system. The Federal Election Commission's October 1 summary of activity between January 1, 2025, and June 30, 2026, recorded $2.8 billion in receipts for congressional candidates and $1.38 billion for political parties. Political action committees reported $8.31 billion in receipts, while independent expenditures totalled $643.4 million.

The figures underscore why transparency and the potential influence of major donors remain central to the debate.

What Does India's Political Funding System Reveal?

India's most consequential recent intervention in political funding came through the Supreme Court's February 15, 2024, judgment striking down the Electoral Bond Scheme.

In Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India, the Court held that anonymous political funding violated voters' right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It also found that the 2017 amendments permitting unlimited corporate political contributions were arbitrary and violated Article 14.

Following the judgment, the Election Commission of India published electoral-bond data received from the State Bank of India and the Supreme Court Registry. The ruling established the constitutional importance of transparency in political funding, but it did not end large-scale political donations through other channels.

Figures for the 2024–25 financial year illustrate the continuing concentration of reported contributions. An Association for Democratic Reforms analysis found that six national parties collectively declared ₹6,648.56 crore in donations exceeding ₹20,000. The BJP reported ₹6,074.02 crore, compared with ₹517.39 crore for the Congress.

Electoral trusts remain another important funding channel. ADR's analysis of 10 trusts for 2024–25 found that they received approximately ₹3,826.34 crore from companies and individuals and distributed roughly the same amount to political parties. Corporate and business houses contributed approximately ₹3,636.82 crore. The BJP received ₹3,157.65 crore, or 82.52% of the total disbursed by these trusts.

These figures reflect the contributions reported through the channels examined. Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act requires parties to report contributions exceeding ₹20,000, subject to applicable statutory provisions. The electoral-bond exemption was invalidated by the Supreme Court.

The central question is therefore wider than the fate of one funding scheme: how easily can voters establish who finances political parties, how much money they receive and whether financial support creates opportunities for influence?

How Does India Monitor Conflicts Of Interest?

India has several mechanisms for disclosure and accountability, but their scope and accessibility vary.

The Election Commission's candidate-affidavit portal allows voters to examine information submitted by election candidates, including assets, liabilities and declared criminal cases. ADR reported that 251 of the 543 MPs analysed after the 2024 Lok Sabha election had declared criminal cases against themselves. These are declarations of cases, not convictions, and cannot be treated as proof of corruption.

Disclosure requirements also apply after election. Section 75A of the Representation of the People Act requires MPs to declare certain assets and liabilities, including those of their spouses and dependent children. A Lok Sabha Secretariat bulletin specifies that members must submit the information within 90 days of taking their oath. The material is submitted to the Secretary-General in a closed cover, unlike the publicly searchable individual financial-disclosure system for US House members.

Parliamentary ethics rules provide another layer of oversight. The Rajya Sabha's Committee on Ethics examines alleged ethical misconduct and maintains a register of members' interests. Under Rule 294, members must declare a direct or indirect personal or specific pecuniary interest in a matter before participating in its consideration.

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, provides a framework for investigating corruption allegations against specified public functionaries. A government reply on March 25, 2026, recorded 389 complaints registered with the Lokpal in 2025–26 up to February 28, of which 336 had been disposed of.

What Are The Learnings For Each?

The comparison points towards strengthening existing safeguards rather than importing another country's system wholesale.

First, political funding disclosures need to be accessible and comparable. India's Election Commission publishes party contribution reports and electoral-trust disclosures, but timely filing, standardised information and easier comparisons across parties would help voters scrutinise the flow of money.

Second, financial interests after election deserve attention. Candidate affidavits make information available to voters before they cast their ballots, while MPs' post-election asset declarations are submitted in a closed cover. Greater public access to elected representatives' financial interests and periodic changes in assets could improve scrutiny of potential conflicts.

Third, disclosure may not be sufficient where public office creates opportunities for financial gain. Clearer restrictions on financial activities involving elected representatives, stronger recusal requirements and consistent enforcement of existing rules could complement transparency measures.

Finally, independent oversight must distinguish allegations from findings. The US campaign shows how anti-corruption language can be deployed against opponents without an established finding of wrongdoing. India's accountability mechanisms also need to make the stages of complaint, investigation, prosecution and disposal clear to the public.

Neither country offers a complete model. The US permits substantial independent political spending and continues to face controversies over self-dealing and conflicts of interest. India has a constitutional ruling against anonymous electoral bonds, but large-scale donations continue through other reported channels.

The US midterm debate illustrates how corruption can become a question of economic fairness, corporate influence and the use of public office for private advantage. For India, the electoral-bonds judgment provides a legal foundation for transparency, while the continuing scale of political contributions highlights the work that remains. The test for both democracies is whether anti-corruption promises translate into enforceable safeguards after elections, rather than remaining campaign slogans.