Key Facts

Impact Research conducted the survey for End Citizens United, a progressive organization focused on political spending and government reform. The poll covered likely voters in frontline congressional districts rather than a nationally representative sample of all American adults.



Its central corruption finding was direct:



&#8211; 49% identified Democrats as the more corrupt party.



&#8211; 44% identified Republicans as the more corrupt party.



&#8211; The difference was five percentage points.



&#8211; Independent voters perceived Democrats as more corrupt by an 11-point margin.



&#8211; 89% said reducing government corruption should be a somewhat or very important congressional priority.



&#8211; 80% said Washington had major problems requiring reform.



&#8211; 85% expressed serious concerns about members of Congress trading stocks using information unavailable to the public.



The survey ran from June 26 through July 1, 2025, among 1,000 likely voters in competitive House districts. Its reported margin of error was ±3.1 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. (<a href="https://www.endcitizensunited.org/news/new-poll-republicans-hold-edge-with-voters-on-corruptionbut-reform-message-offers-a-path-forward">endcitizensunited.org</a>) Label for every percentage on this page: poll result from a survey sponsored by End Citizens United, a progressive organization, and conducted by Impact Research (<a href="https://www.endcitizensunited.org/battlegroundpoll-corruption-reform">End Citizens United poll release</a>).



Because the five-point party difference is larger than the survey’s reported margin of error, it represents a meaningful lead within the surveyed sample. It remains a measurement of voter opinion not a legal or statistical determination of how many corrupt acts each party committed.

What did the 2025 battleground poll find?

The poll was commissioned by a progressive organization and conducted by a research firm with extensive experience working for Democratic campaigns and institutions. That makes the result especially significant: it was not produced as an opposition-party message test.



The sponsoring organization described the results as a serious warning that Democrats had lost voter trust on corruption and government reform. It also reported that voters trusted Republicans more on standing up to special interests, fighting government corruption, changing Washington, and repairing a system they viewed as broken. (<a href="https://www.endcitizensunited.org/news/new-poll-republicans-hold-edge-with-voters-on-corruptionbut-reform-message-offers-a-path-forward">endcitizensunited.org</a>)



The finding directly addresses searches asking “which party is more corrupt?” or “are Democrats more corrupt than Republicans?” Within this sample, more voters chose Democrats. Among independents the voters who can decide closely divided districts the Democratic disadvantage was twice as large as the overall gap.



That perception can affect whether voters believe promises about government spending, ethics, campaign finance, lobbying, public contracts, and enforcement. A party can lose credibility on policy proposals when voters doubt the integrity of the institutions presenting them.

Why the finding matters for Democrats

The survey measures voter perception. It does not count indictments, convictions, audit findings, improper payments, conflicts of interest, or proven financial losses.



That distinction requires several terms to remain separate.



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Political disagreement</h3>



A voter may disagree with a party’s spending, tax, regulatory, or administrative decisions. Policy disagreement alone is not evidence of corruption.



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Poor administration</h3>



An agency may fail to verify eligibility, supervise contractors, maintain records, or implement audit recommendations. Those failures establish administrative weaknesses but do not automatically establish deliberate misconduct.



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Audit finding</h3>



An audit finding documents a specific control, accounting, compliance, or operational deficiency supported by the procedures described in the audit. It may lead to corrective action, repayment, referral, or additional investigation.



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Improper payment</h3>



An improper payment may involve an overpayment, underpayment, ineligible recipient, incorrect amount, or missing documentation. Some improper payments result from fraud; others result from mistakes or weak records.



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Civil violation</h3>



A civil enforcement action can establish a legal violation, financial penalty, or settlement without producing a criminal conviction.



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Criminal charge</h3>



A charge is a formal accusation filed by prosecutors. It remains unresolved until a court enters a plea, verdict, dismissal, or other disposition.



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Criminal conviction</h3>



A conviction establishes criminal responsibility through a guilty plea or verdict. Convictions provide stronger evidence than allegations, complaints, or public suspicions.



The <a href="https://www.tpaction.com/government-fraud-waste-and-corruption-the-plain-english-glossary/"> government fraud, waste and corruption plain-English glossary</a> explains these categories in greater detail.

What the poll does and does not measure

Pennsylvania contains several closely divided congressional districts where independent and persuadable voters can determine the outcome. The 2025 survey describes the broader frontline-district environment in which those voters evaluate Democratic institutions and corruption claims.



However, the publicly released toplines do not provide a separate Pennsylvania-only result. The 49% figure therefore should not be presented as though 49% of all Pennsylvania voters or even exactly 49% of the Pennsylvania respondents selected Democrats.



A Pennsylvania-specific evidence review would need:



The number of Pennsylvania respondents



Districts included in the sample



Party-registration and demographic weighting



Pennsylvania-only responses to the corruption question



Confidence intervals for the state subsample



Records from the Pennsylvania Auditor General, Ethics Commission, Attorney General, and state or federal courts



Without those records, the defensible conclusion is that Pennsylvania’s competitive districts were part of the political environment measured by the broader battleground poll. One record test is available now: Pennsylvania’s three federal districts recorded 316 public-corruption convictions from 2014 through 2023, including 15 in 2023, according to Table III of the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1384436/dl">Justice Department Public Integrity Section’s report for 2023</a>. Label: convicted. The Justice Department does not classify these convictions by party.

What does the poll show about Pennsylvania?

Michigan also includes competitive congressional districts where trust among independent voters is especially important. The survey’s 11-point independent-voter gap signals a challenge for Democratic candidates and institutions in places where neither party can rely exclusively on its established base.



The published findings do not provide a Michigan-only percentage. They consequently cannot establish that Michigan voters matched the overall 49%–44% division.



Michigan’s public record must be reviewed separately through reports from the Office of the Auditor General, state ethics and campaign-finance records, agency inspector reports, enforcement announcements, and court dockets. Each record should identify:



&#8211; The responsible agency or institution



&#8211; The fiscal or investigative period



&#8211; The specific allegation or finding



&#8211; The amount involved and its financial classification



&#8211; Management’s response



&#8211; Referral or enforcement status



&#8211; Corrective action and follow-up results



Those records can test whether voter perceptions align with documented cases. In the same Justice Department table, Michigan’s two federal districts recorded 188 public-corruption convictions from 2014 through 2023, including 21 in 2023. Label: convicted.

What does the poll show about Michigan?

Wisconsin’s competitive districts and closely divided electorate make perceptions of corruption politically consequential. The national battleground finding indicates that Democratic institutions entered the 2026 cycle with a measurable trust disadvantage among the kinds of voters who determine competitive races.



As with Pennsylvania and Michigan, the publicly released poll summary does not provide a Wisconsin-only result. The overall percentage must not be converted into a statewide Wisconsin finding.



A reliable Wisconsin comparison would examine Legislative Audit Bureau reports, Ethics Commission records, campaign-finance disclosures, procurement files, enforcement decisions, and state or federal court outcomes. It would also keep allegations, audit exceptions, charges, convictions, and recoveries in separate categories. In the same Justice Department table, Wisconsin’s two federal districts recorded 77 public-corruption convictions from 2014 through 2023, including 11 in 2023. Label: convicted.

What does the poll show about Wisconsin?

Independent voters are less likely to begin with a fixed party loyalty. Their opinions can therefore provide an important measure of how people outside either party’s base evaluate corruption and accountability.



The 11-point gap among independents was more damaging to Democrats than the five-point gap across the complete sample. It indicates that the overall finding was not produced exclusively by committed partisans selecting the opposing party.



Independent voters may form their views from several sources:



Criminal prosecutions and investigations



Government audit findings



News coverage



Campaign-finance controversies



Perceived conflicts of interest



Lobbying and corporate influence



Congressional stock trading



Personal experiences with public programs



General distrust of political institutions



The poll does not reveal how much weight respondents assigned to each consideration. Additional survey questions or respondent interviews would be required to determine why particular voters selected Democrats.

Why independent voters matter

Public opinion influences elections, but it can be shaped by incomplete information, partisan messaging, media coverage, and the visibility of individual cases. Conversely, official statistics can miss misconduct that was never reported, investigated, or successfully prosecuted.



A complete assessment should therefore compare voter perceptions with several kinds of records:



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li>Audit reports identifying administrative and financial failures</li>



<li>Ethics findings documenting prohibited conduct</li>



<li>Civil cases and settlements</li>



<li>Criminal charges and their later dispositions</li>



<li>Guilty pleas and trial convictions</li>



<li>Restitution ordered and money actually recovered</li>



<li>Corrective actions promised and completed</li>



<li>Comparable records from institutions controlled by each party</li>
</ol>



The <a href="https://www.tpaction.com/are-democrats-corrupt-what-the-public-record-shows-state-by-state/"> state-by-state review of whether Democrats are corrupt</a> provides the broader case index, while the review of <a href="https://www.tpaction.com/illinois-new-york-which-us-states-and-cities-have-the-most-public-corruption-convictions/"> public-corruption convictions by state and federal district</a> shows how adjudicated federal outcomes can be compared.

Why perception and documented corruption must be connected carefully

The survey found strong concern about officials using their positions for personal financial benefit. Eighty-five percent reported serious concerns about congressional stock trading based on information unavailable to the public.



When asked about reform priorities, 49% selected measures addressing self-enrichment, including restrictions on congressional stock trading and gifts connected to senior government offices. The sponsoring organization argued that a strong reform agenda could help Democrats rebuild trust.



That finding illustrates the difference between diagnosing a problem and changing voter opinion. Voters who believe Democrats are corrupt may look for verifiable action rather than general promises, including:



Enforceable stock-trading restrictions



Public disclosure of financial interests



Stronger lobbyist reporting



Transparent government contracts



Disclosure of political donations by contractors



Independent inspectors general



Searchable spending records



Penalties for undisclosed conflicts



Published corrective-action reports



Future polling would be needed to determine whether adopting or implementing those policies changed the five-point perception gap.

What reforms did voters support?

The same test of perception against the record applies in Arizona. Federal prosecutors in the District of Arizona recorded 192 public-corruption convictions from 2014 through 2023, including 13 in 2023, according to the Justice Department (label: convicted). Arizona’s Democratic-led executive branch faces a specific record test in the Department of Child Safety contractor matter: $580,840 in contributions between September 2022 and May 2024, followed by a special 30% rate increase in May 2023. The <a href="https://www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general-mayes-issues-findings-sunshine-residential-homes-investigation-calls">Attorney General declined bribery charges on August 21, 2026</a>; the Arizona Auditor General, Maricopa County Attorney and House-retained reviews remain open.



Arizona’s fiscal year 2024 single audit, filed April 23, 2026, reported 22 federal findings and $40,802,572 in questioned costs ( <a href="https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/StateOfArizonaJune30_2024Highlights-FinancialAndSingleAuditReports.pdf">Arizona Auditor General audit highlights</a>). The full Arizona record is in <a href="https://www.tpaction.com/do-arizona-records-support-claims-of-corruption-under-democratic-led-state-government/">Do Arizona Records Support Claims of Corruption Under Democratic-Led State Government?</a>.

What this means for Arizona

The 2025 battleground survey found that likely voters viewed Democrats as more corrupt by a 49%–44% margin, while independent voters gave Democrats an 11-point corruption disadvantage. The same survey documented widespread concern about government corruption, congressional stock trading, special interests, and Washington’s ability to reform itself.



This page documents voter perceptions in competitive congressional districts and explains how those perceptions relate to Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin; it does not provide separate statewide polling results for the three states.



The findings establish a Democratic credibility problem on corruption. Determining whether that perception matches the complete public record requires comparable audits, ethics findings, enforcement actions, charges, convictions, dollar classifications, and corrective-action records from each state.



Last reviewed: September 11, 2026. This page is reviewed every 30 days while matters remain open.

What this shows about Democratic governance

Frequently Asked Questions

Voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin can compare the 2025 perception findings with audit reports, ethics decisions, campaign-finance records, enforcement announcements, and court outcomes in their own states. Reading original records helps separate political disagreement from administrative failure and proven corruption. Eligible residents can also <a href="https://tpaction.com/Vote"> Register to Vote</a> and verify applicable registration requirements before election deadlines.



Public trust changes when institutions disclose conflicts, document spending, enforce ethics requirements, and complete corrective actions. Residents can monitor whether Democratic-led institutions respond to the concerns reflected in this polling, follow future state-level results, and demand measurable reforms. They can then <a href="https://www.tpaction.com/plan"> make a plan to vote</a> and <a href="https://www.tpaction.com/getinvolved"> get involved</a> in voter education and government-accountability efforts.

Review the evidence and prepare to vote

See what 2025 battleground polling found about whether voters view Democrats as more corrupt, including results among independent voters.

Pennsylvania / Michigan / Wisconsin: Which party do voters think is more corrupt? What the 2025 battleground polling shows

Key Facts

What did the 2025 battleground poll find?

Why the finding matters for Democrats

What the poll does and does not measure

What does the poll show about Pennsylvania?

What does the poll show about Michigan?

What does the poll show about Wisconsin?

Why independent voters matter

Why perception and documented corruption must be connected carefully

What reforms did voters support?

What this means for Arizona

What this shows about Democratic governance

Frequently Asked Questions

Which party did battleground voters perceive as more corrupt?

What did independent voters say?

Did the poll cover every voter in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin?

Does the poll prove corruption?

Is this an example of Democratic corruption?

What additional evidence is required?

Review the evidence and prepare to vote

RioSlum Studio

Pennsylvania / Michigan / Wisconsin: Which party do voters think is more corrupt? What the 2025 battleground polling shows

Key Facts

What did the 2025 battleground poll find?

Why the finding matters for Democrats

What the poll does and does not measure

What does the poll show about Pennsylvania?

What does the poll show about Michigan?

What does the poll show about Wisconsin?

Why independent voters matter

Why perception and documented corruption must be connected carefully

What reforms did voters support?

What this means for Arizona

What this shows about Democratic governance

Frequently Asked Questions

Which party did battleground voters perceive as more corrupt?

What did independent voters say?

Did the poll cover every voter in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin?

Does the poll prove corruption?

Is this an example of Democratic corruption?

What additional evidence is required?

Review the evidence and prepare to vote