While the current international and transnational anti-corruption campaign (ITACC) has been successful in calling worldwide attention to the topic, several critics have argued that the term corruption and the concepts that underlie it are ambiguous and that corruption and anti-corruption have various meanings. This paper empirically explores these supposedly divergent meanings by comparing the ITACC with the anti-corruption discourse in Paraguay. In order to explore not only the tensions but also possible coalitions between the ITACC and the Paraguayan discourse, I have conducted discourse analysis and constructionist interviews. The empirical exploration shows that differences, and thus tensions, exist between both levels with respect to the causes and effects attributed to corruption, as well as with regard to the ultimate goal of the fight against corruption. However, there also is a strong discourse coalition between the ITACC and Paraguay concerning concrete countermeasures, which indicates the dominance of the international anti-corruption approach in the Latin American country. Very different actors with divergent understandings of corruption are able to act collectively against corruption via this discourse coalition, while still interpreting these actions according to their respective political agendas.