IS ANTI-CORRUPTION A CAMPAIGN STRATEGY? IT IS IF WE MAKE IT SO.

This week Dave Brat, a conservative aligned with libertarianism and the tea party, defeated Eric Cantor, the House majority leader in their Virginia Republican primary. John Nichols reports that this is “the first time since the post was formally established in 1899, a House majority leader has been defeated in a bid for renomination.”

Brat campaigned claiming to be a “truer” conservative than Cantor. He slammed Cantor’s record of blatantly serving his own monetary interests and those of the financial sector, and he repeatedly promised to “fight to end crony capitalist programs that benefit the rich and powerful.” He raised something like 1/25 of Cantor’s $5 million campaign coffers.

Important conversations are happening around this election result. Brat’s policy positions on immigration, labor, and social programs are almost uniformly terrible. Brat framed his critique of Cantor in terms of crony-capitalism. His solutions to capitalism’s problems are firmly in the camp of “small government” and “unfettering” free markets. Clearly these positions are unsettling to those on the political left. So questions about the possibilities, benefits, and costs of building left/right coalitions around anti-corruption are messy and important.

There are also valid questions about the extent and ultimate importance of anti-corruption within Brat’s campaign platform. Was immigration policy a more decisive issue? Did Virginia’s open primary system enable Democrats to “infiltrate” and vote for Brat? Was this another case of the Tea Party ousting a mainstream Republican?

While these conversations happen, groups organizing against political corruption such as Mayday.US, Represent Me, and the Wolf PAC need to grab this narrative and amplify it: anti-corruption defeated one of the most powerful Republicans in the country. Say it again. And again and again. Yes, there might be some truthiness involved here, but not at the level of an ethical breach. This is politics right? Reformers should latch onto this and make the lesson about the power of anti-corruption, not about the primary horse race, not left-right coalition-building. And this is especially true for Mayday.US, which aims to make anti-corruption an essential policy platform across both parties. Lessig, are you listening?

Lee Fang argues that anti-corruption was in fact THE major issue in this campaign, as least in terms of Brat’s own rhetorical emphasis.

Did the Tea Party swoop in and help Brat, as many in the Democratic Party are suggesting? Actually, the Wall Street Journal reports no major Tea Party or anti-establishment GOP group spent funds to defeat Cantor. Did Cantor, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, lose because of his religion, as some have suggested? There’s no evidence so far of anti-Semitism during the campaign. Was Cantor caught flatfooted? Nope; Cantor’s campaign spent close to $1 million on the race and several outside advocacy groups, including the National Rifle Association, the National Realtors Association and the American Chemistry Council (a chemical industry lobbying association) came in and poured money into the district to defeat Brat. The New York Times claims that Brat focused his campaign primarily on immigration reform. Brat certainly made immigration a visible topic in his race, but Republic Report listened to several hours of Brat stump speeches and radio appearances, and that issue came up far less than what Brat called the main problem in government: corruption and cronyism.

Sure, anti-corruption could be mere campaign platitudes, a forceful way to attack Cantor. And even if Brat is serious about ending monied political influence, he obviously faces great challenges implementing policies in that vein in the current political system. These are important issues, but not as important as employing this election result to amplify the political discourse of anti-corruption.