'Politicians get rich on stocks while Americans struggle to pay bills': Anti-corruption sentiment clouds US midterms

"Politicians are getting rich off stock trades while ordinary Americans can barely afford the cost of living."

With less than a month to go before the US midterm elections, a wave of anti-corruption sentiment is emerging as a new fault line in the campaign — targeting lawmakers' stock trades, growing personal wealth and large political donations. As high energy prices and inflation squeeze household budgets, criticism is mounting that politicians are prioritizing their own interests and those of their donors over the public good.

Across key congressional districts nationwide, campaigns are going on the offensive over lawmakers' stock trades and conflicts of interest, according to the Associated Press on Wednesday (local time). The strategy links ethical concerns about the political class to voters' economic frustrations, as the cost of living has become the defining issue of this midterm cycle.

Virginia's 1st Congressional District offers one of the clearest examples. Democratic candidate Shannon Taylor is pressing Republican incumbent Rob Wittman — who has served in Congress for nearly two decades — over his stock trades and accumulation of personal wealth.

Taylor argues that Wittman grew his fortune by holding and trading shares in companies that fall under congressional oversight. Campaign ads have accused politicians from both parties of using information unavailable to ordinary citizens to build wealth through stock trading.

Wittman has flatly denied the allegations. He said the primary reason for his increased net worth is an inheritance he and his wife received from their parents, and that outside financial advisers manage his stock investments entirely. He maintains he has never used nonpublic information for investment purposes.

The AP noted that Wittman's financial disclosures do show his assets and individual stock holdings grew substantially during his tenure, but said that alone does not prove any improper trading.

Taylor has made banning individual stock trading by members of Congress, imposing term limits and permanently barring former lawmakers from becoming lobbyists central campaign pledges. She has also vowed to refuse donations from corporate political action committees.

The race is drawing additional attention because it is being fought on traditionally Republican turf. Virginia's 1st District has not sent a Democratic representative to Congress since the late 1970s. President Donald Trump carried the district by about 5 percentage points in the 2024 presidential election, though the Democratic candidate won the state's gubernatorial race last year by roughly 3 points.

Democrats are counting on that shift. Wittman, meanwhile, is leaning on his long local record and name recognition to hold the seat. His campaign ads highlight his past work at a tomato cannery and on a fishing boat, as well as the fact that he has lived in the same home since 1985.

Voter reactions are mixed. Bruce Halverton, an independent who cast an early vote for Taylor, suggested Wittman had already made more than enough money. Michael Green, a local seafood vendor, dismissed the allegations against Wittman as false and praised his work in the district.

The fight over corruption is not confined to Virginia.

Jamie Ager, the Democratic candidate in a North Carolina congressional race, has said he is tired of politicians enriching themselves at the public's expense. The district's Republican incumbent, Chuck Edwards, opted against seeking reelection after an ethics investigation into alleged misconduct involving female staffers.

In New Jersey, Democratic candidate Rebecca Bennett has raised questions about Republican incumbent Tom Kean Jr.'s stock trading disclosures. Kean said his financial advisers, not he personally, made the trades.

The anti-corruption offensive is not exclusively a Democratic strategy. In Virginia's 2nd Congressional District, Republican incumbent Jen Kiggans is attacking Democratic candidate Elaine Luria, a former congresswoman, over her past stock trades and her previous opposition to banning lawmakers from trading individual stocks. Luria has since reversed course and now supports restricting sitting members of Congress from holding and trading individual shares.

The fact that candidates from both parties are leveling corruption accusations at each other reflects a broader erosion of public trust in the political establishment.

An AP-NORC poll conducted last month found that roughly half of registered voters said the word "corrupt" described the Republican Party very well. About a third said the same of the Democratic Party.

The anti-corruption backlash is spreading beyond individual lawmakers' stock trades to the broader question of campaign finance.

This year's midterms are shaping up to be among the most expensive elections in American history, according to The Washington Post. An analysis by The New York Times found that at least $1 billion in so-called dark money flowed into primary races alone.

Dark money refers to funds channeled through nonprofit organizations and similar groups that are not required to disclose their donors, making it difficult for voters to know who is backing a given candidate.

Spending by the AI and virtual assets industries has also surged. The Washington Post cited analysis showing that industry groups poured more than $100 million into primary races alone, as companies seek to shape future regulatory policy.

In the Texas Senate race, Democratic candidate James Talarico has tied the issue of large political donations directly to the cost of living. He has argued that billionaire donors fund politicians, who then rewrite economic rules to benefit the wealthy.

Republicans are also mobilizing enormous sums. Republican and pro-Trump groups have amassed roughly $1 billion in campaign funds, according to the AP. MAGA Inc., the political action committee supporting Trump, held approximately $416 million in cash as of late August.

However, a large war chest does not guarantee victory. While Republicans are pouring money into advertising, Democrats are turning that spending into a talking point — using it as evidence of the influence wielded by the wealthy and entrenched interests.

Meredith McGehee, a US political ethics expert, said campaign money plays an important role in raising a candidate's profile and amplifying their message, but that having more money does not necessarily mean winning the election.

The reason anti-corruption sentiment is resonating in this midterm cycle is that questions about politicians' ethics have converged with voters' economic frustrations.

As gasoline and grocery prices rise and household budgets tighten, lawmakers' stock trades and large donor contributions can reinforce the perception that Washington is out of touch with the realities facing ordinary Americans.

Democrats are using that perception to contest long-held Republican strongholds, while Republicans are fighting back by targeting their opponents' personal finances and stock trading records.

When voters head to the polls on Nov. 3, their verdict on conflicts of interest in politics is set to be as consequential as their views on inflation and economic policy.