The Pendulum Strikes at Corruption

A year ago this week, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon was asked on CNN if he was considering donating to the controversial White House ballroom project, when many of his peers were making donations in the hope of short-term benefits. “We have to be very careful about how anything is perceived, and also how the next DOJ is going to deal with it,” Dimon replied. “So, we’re quite conscious of risks we bear by doing anything that looks like buying favors or anything like that.” 

Leaders at other well-known US corporations including Nvidia, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Comcast, Caterpillar, T-Mobile, Lockheed Martin, HP, Booz Allen Hamilton, Union Pacific Railroad and Palantir weighed the risks and opportunities differently. A June 2026 report by Public Citizen found that over half of corporate ballroom donors “received new or increased government contracts over the [previous] 6 months totaling over $50 billion.” More than half of the donors to the ballroom project have had federal enforcement actions suspended by the Trump administration.

Recent examples of companies securing favors through political donations abound. After a $5M donation to the President’s inauguration fund, poultry processing company Pilgrim’s Pride received a special waiver from the Dept. of Agriculture and SEC approval to list on the New York Stock Exchange. Paramount agreed to pay $16M to the Trump Presidential Library days before the FCC approved its merger with Skydance. The SEC dropped an investigation into Coinbase after the company and several of its investors donated over $6M to MAGA Inc.

With little congressional oversight into these relationships, the public has formed their own opinions. In September, Gallup found, “Americans’ perceptions of government corruption in the U.S. are at their highest level in 20 years, with 89% of U.S. adults saying it is widespread.” Lest business leaders think that corruption concerns are aimed only at government, Gallup also found that more than 70% of Americans believe corruption is widespread in business. The public is less interested in the legal definition of corruption than in behavior that, as Transparency International characterizes it, involves the abuse of power for private gain.

To the public, government and business corruption are too often two sides of the same coin.

Corruption doesn’t just undermine our democracy, it also undermines trust in our economic system and weakens the institutions that provide stability. Surveys from Harvard, Cato, Pew, and others have found that Gen Z now holds socialism in higher esteem than capitalism. And it’s not just young people. Gallup recently saw the highest approval for socialism from all Americans since 2010. When Gallup asked whether they had a positive or negative image of five different economic concepts, only 35% had a positive image of Big Business. That was eight points lower than Socialism, 20 points lower than Capitalism, 42 points lower than Free Enterprise and a stunning 60 points lower than Small Business.

This year, anti-corruption sentiment has been on display globally. In April, Victor Orban lost his election in Hungary due to an overwhelming backlash against corruption. And a youth movement in Serbia just ousted longtime leader Aleksandar Vučić under a slogan “Serbia or the mafia.” In both countries, corruption became a key explanation for faltering economic conditions. Graft and cronyism enriched a few while regular people lost ground. The American public has seen its own split screen of rising costs and economic anxiety on one side and personal enrichment by office holders and conveniently timed donations followed by pardons, government contracts, special exemptions from tariffs, or regulatory favors on the other.

It’s no coincidence that corruption rose to become a top campaign issue at a time of sustained economic anxiety for voters. As corporate stock valuations have soared, the public has been wading through years of rising costs. Frustration compounded over the past two years as steady reports of seemingly corrupt relationships between corporate and government leaders piled up. The outcome of this week’s midterms was a strong message to both government and business leaders: the public is angry and demanding change.  

What’s Next?

With the campaigns behind us and Democrats set to control both chambers of Congress, Dimon’s instinct to avoid the appearance of impropriety appears savvy. Some Congressional Democrats have promised aggressive investigations into companies and individuals suspected of corruption. Even so, such investigations can’t tackle every example of questionable relationships between private interests and government. The American people also need Congress to legislate and address real problems directly impacting voters’ lives. One important question is whether the new congress will do enough to establish guardrails and discourage the conflicts of interest that undermine democracy and faith in our economic system. This should include the difficult task of reforming campaign finance, given a midterm cycle where dark money totaled over $1.5B, a handful of individuals spent more than $100M each, and one spent nearly $500M.

Corporate leaders will have a new calculus for how they engage with government, and Congressional leaders will be under pressure to honor voter expectations and oversee business. A return to older norms is one potential path, but a better bet is more aggressive oversight not only from Congress, but from the public itself.

Some business leaders may decide that the risk of crossing the line on conflicts of interest or compromising the democratic process is still worth the payout. Corruption spreads when it works. Until the risks outweigh the benefits, transactional leaders in business and government will have less motivation to change behavior. Clearer rules and stronger enforcement would go a long way towards restoring trust in our economic system and repairing the damage to our democracy. It would also help repair the damage corruption has done to the affordability of everyday American life.

Beyond formal rules, we may also be overdue for a new code of expectations and behavior among business leaders themselves. Dimon’s insight last year provides a useful starting point. But if business leaders don’t start to establish new norms against corrupt behaviors, there will be few options left except more aggressive regulation. Corporate leaders have lost a great deal of public trust, and with it, leeway. Perhaps the most consequential message to business from these midterms is that the costs of corruption are being borne by a public whose patience has run out.