U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi’s departure in the 8th district to run for Senate, is proving to be a pivotal this election season.
The March 17, 2026, primary election will be one of the most competitive races Illinois has seen in more than a decade, as the outcome could determine the winner before the general election.
The blue wave that is currently sweeping Illinois will only run its course if Democrats continue to support it. Yet, there’s a glaring imbalance in who shows up to vote.
Older voters consistently turn out at much higher rates than younger voters. As a result, politicians often tailor their messaging and policy priorities toward the issues most important to seniors—including the economy, job security, and healthcare.
Meanwhile, younger generations, the very people who will inherit the consequences of today’s laws, remain underrepresented at the ballot box.
If we are the ones inheriting these policies, then we should be proactive about the politicians we support, especially local politicians.
Local politicians are the ones who go on to represent Illinois on the national stage. People can’t be engaged voters if we don’t understand the current political landscape or the behind-the-scenes tactics that contribute to voter disengagement.
One of the most troubling realities of modern campaigns is the influence of big corporations.
Corporations pour millions of dollars into political races. These donations manifest in bombardments of advertising, print media, digital ads, and everything in between. These donations are rarely acts of goodwill—they are investments.
Corporations and Political Action Committees (PACs) give with the expectation that, if their preferred candidate wins, policies will follow that benefit their bottom line.
One tactic these entities encourage that illustrates this dynamic is “red boxing.”
Red boxing is a method of indirect coordination between campaigns and PACs that skirts campaign finance laws. It allows outside groups to support a candidate while technically maintaining “independence.”
In practice, it gives an unfair advantage to candidates willing to collaborate with special interests, allowing PACs to heavily influence, if not outright shape, elections.
The term comes from the literal red box often found on a candidate’s website, a message crafted to outside groups on how to support the campaign, what issues to emphasize, and which voter demographics to target, without direct communication.
It’s strategic, calculated, and it’s designed to operate in a legal gray area. They are effectively buying votes without care for the voter and what they want or need.
While on the topic of protecting democracy, we can’t ignore gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is the practice of redrawing congressional district lines to weaken opposition voters and strengthen those already in power. It has a long and troubling history of being used to maintain political control, often against the broader will of the people.
By manipulating district boundaries, incumbents can make elections less competitive and more predictable—further discouraging meaningful civic engagement.
So with all of this in mind, you might be asking: Is there a Democrat in this election that actually cares about representing the people? Yes, and I think it’s Sanjyot Dunung.
In a political environment shaped by corporate money and strategic maneuvering, Sanjyot stands out because she has chosen not to accept money with mysterious origins for mysterious goals (Dark PAC). Special Interest groups have bastardized our elections for their own personal gain rather than the gain of the people whom the election represents.
While many candidates publicly criticize these tactics, Federal Election Commission filings often tell a different story. Sanjyot’s position is clear: a campaign race fueled by special-interest money is not a race worth winning. To her, victory means earning the trust of voters—not purchasing influence.
Some argue that if the system allows something, candidates should take advantage of it. However, if everyone operated with that mindset, we would regress as a society. Ethical boundaries matter—even when they are inconvenient.
From the beginning of her campaign, Sanjyot has emphasized level-headed, strategic planning over reactionary politics. While others have shifted their messaging or hypocritically postured themselves as the race has intensified, her core principles have remained consistent.
Sanjyot is the only one in the race with current federal policy experience on how to strengthen small businesses, create jobs, expand post-education training, and protect economic and national security. She also has private-sector and personal family experiences, like many of our families in our district.
She’s committed to delivering solutions that allow for good-paying jobs; affordable childcare, disabled care, and elder care; stronger education and skills training, and pro-legal immigration reform that’s humane, fair, and faster.
She approaches this election not emotionally, but deliberately—focused on correcting what she believes the federal government has gotten wrong and doing so without compromising her integrity.
At the end of the day, we all have different values and beliefs. But if we want a political system that truly reflects the people it represents, it starts with understanding the system, showing up, and supporting candidates who align with the future we want to build.
We need to vote; if we don’t, then our voices will never be heard!
Editor’s note: Ibrahim Webhi is a Harper student and special contributor who is volunteering/interning for 8th district Candidate Sanjyot Dunung’s campaign. His opinions do not represent The Harbinger, nor should they be considered an official endorsement.
