The Role of AIPAC in Democratic Primaries

Money in politics has long been an issue when it comes to political campaigns in the United States. It is very common for political candidates to claim that their opponents are owned by wealthy contributors, special interests, or other sources of campaign funds. After the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United, the advent of Super PACs, and the increase in dark money, campaign funding schemes have become so opaque that it is almost impossible to know who is funding which candidate. In recent primaries, one source of funding, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC, has become particularly controversial and, as a result of that controversy, has often gone to great lengths to hide its contributions. In some cases, AIPAC, which has traditionally been the big bad wolf that candidates didn't want opposing them, has become an albatross that candidates are eager to hang around their opponent's neck.

In 1984, AIPAC helped defeat U.S. Senator Charles Percy, the then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What was notable about AIPAC's opposition to Percy is that Percy had almost always been supportive of Israel. He had only really differed on one issue: the sale of AWACs aircraft to Saudi Arabia. AIPAC's success, and its apparent demand for 100% adherence to its agenda, may have cemented its image as a powerful political force. The next year, Paul Findley — a former U.S. Representative from Illinois — published a book titled, "They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby." The book was aimed at exposing pro-Israel influence in American politics, including the role of AIPAC. However, the book might have actually had the effect of reinforcing the message that politicians should adhere strictly to AIPAC's line or suffer the consequences. For decades, the fear of AIPAC's money largely was sufficient to ensure almost complete support for Israel within the U.S. House and Senate.

It is perhaps ironic that, at that time, AIPAC was not actually a political action committee or PAC. The organization did not directly provide money to campaigns. Instead, many of AIPAC's board members controlled PACs, often with names that had nothing to do with Israel, that acted in coordination with AIPAC. AIPAC has since created two PACs. The AIPAC PAC is the group’s political action committee used to raise funds and directly contribute to candidates. In addition, the United Democracy Project (UDP) is AIPAC’s affiliated Super PAC.

Israel's war in Gaza and subsequent genocide caused a sea change in how AIPAC and its associated groups were often viewed among voters. AIPAC may have been comfortable with being feared rather than loved, but now it is often hated rather than feared. Where at one time the prospect of AIPAC supporting a candidate's opponent may have been viewed as a serious threat, now it is often seen as an opportunity. As a result, both candidates and AIPAC are now frequently going to great lengths to hide any AIPAC-associated contributions.

One of the clearest examples of the new reality facing AIPAC involved Pennsylvania's 3rd U.S. Congressional district. In an early April poll, Dr. Ala Stanford led with 28% over Chris Rabb who had 23%, and Sharif Street with 16%. As Hope Primas of BlackMediaIQ wrote about her:

Dr. Ala Stanford is running for Congress as a trusted community figure. She built her reputation on the Black Doctors COVID-19 Consortium. She was the face of Black resilience during the pandemic. She had the potential to be a transformative candidate...

However, all of this came to an end on April 23 when Dropsite News published an article documenting AIPAC support for Stanford. According to the report, Stanford had received $2.6 million from an AIPAC-connected super PAC. In addition, hundreds of thousands of dollars of other AIPAC-linked funding was discovered. Just prior to the Dropsite News revelations, Stanford had publicly denied receiving any funding tied to AIPAC. The news that Stanford had been lying about the funding resulted in an immediate drop in her support. Things got so bad that the super PAC cancelled planned television advertisements when its own polling showed that Stanford's support had collapsed. Ultimately, Stanford finished 3rd in the race, losing to progressive candidate Rabb.

AIPAC also played a controversial role in New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District. In the Democratic primary to nominate a candidate for the special election to replace Mikie Sherrill, who had been elected New Jersey's Governor, former Representative Tom Malinowski faced progressive challenger Analilia Mejia, and former Lt. Governor Tahesha Way, who was endorsed by the Democratic Majority for Israel. In an effort to assist Way, the United Democracy Project spent more than $2.3 million in independent expenditures attacking Malinowski. The result was that Mejia won, with Way coming in a distant third. Mejia won the subsequent special election and the primary for the November general election for a full term.

Malinowski was a moderate who was generally supportive of Israel, but he had mused about withholding some weapons sales. After losing the election, he unleashed his fury at AIPAC saying, "The outcome of this race cannot be understood without also taking into account the massive flood of dark money that AIPAC spent on dishonest ads during the last three weeks." He went on to say that "The threat unlimited dark money poses to our democracy is far more significant than the views of a single member of Congress on Middle East policy."

In the New Jersey race, AIPAC engaged in what has become a common tactic, disguising that its issue is support for Israel. In many cases, perhaps most, AIPAC-linked advertisements don't mention Israel. Rather, AIPAC and its associated entities grasp onto local issues that can be exploited. For instance, the advertisements attacking Malinowski focused on Malinowski's vote for the Democratic immigration bill in 2019. This was a bill supported by all but four Democrats and opposed by all but three Republicans. Nevertheless, the ads claimed that Malinowski "voted with Trump and the Republicans to fund ICE."

In a number of Chicago-area primaries for Congressional seats, AIPAC went to great lengths to hide its funding. According to the Chicago Tribune:

United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC, directed more than $5.3 million to bankroll the groups Elect Chicago Women and Affordable Chicago Now, according to Federal Election Commission filings released Friday night.

The two super PACs, along with UDP itself, emerged as the largest outside spenders in Chicago’s four competitive congressional primaries, part of a surge that reached an unprecedented $32.9 million in outside spending. But who was behind and funded the groups remained shrouded until after the March 17 primary election, a tactic that sparked controversy as opponents decried hidden influence.

The Tribune says that "Altogether, Affordable Chicago Now, Elect Chicago Women, and United Democracy Project spent over $19.7 million in the four races." The AIPAC-linked spending had mixed results, with two of the candidates supported by AIPAC winning and two losing. In the 9th District, the AIPAC-backed candidate never gained much traction, and AIPAC turned to a defensive position. In that race, Kat Abughazaleh, a Palestinian-American and staunch critic of Israel, appeared to be gaining late momentum. In response, a super PAC with ties to AIPAC ran commercials supporting another progressive critic of Israel, Bushra Amiwala. This was obviously an effort to siphon votes from Abughazaleh. For her part, Amiwala reacted by saying that she "absolutely could not be more disgusted" by the commercial. While the AIPAC-supported candidate was a distant third in the results, Abughazaleh came in second.

In the recent Congressional primary elections in California, AIPAC-linked funding may have been the downfall of two other candidates that received such money. In CA-22, Jasmeet Bains, who was endorsed by AIPAC-offshoot Democratic Majority for Israel, lost to the Bernie Sanders-endorsed Randy Villegas, who DMFI had opposed. Bains was so eager to distance herself from AIPAC that in a public forum she agreed with Villegas that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.

In California's 7th district, incumbent Doris Matsui had been a perennial favorite of AIPAC, but attempted to distance herself for this election. The progressive group, Justice Democrats, ran ads attacking Matsui for her AIPAC funding and support for weapons sales to Israel. In desperation, Matsui supporters turned to supporting Matsui's Republican opponent in order to prevent progressive challenger Mai Vang from gaining a place in the general election. Ultimately, Vang prevailed and will face Matsui in November.

AIPAC has not only suffered because Israel has lost support in the U.S., particularly among Democrats and young voters of both major parties, but due to the fact that significant amounts of its PAC money come from sources that also support cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump. Therefore, those who may not be bothered by AIPAC's candidates' support for Israel may still be put off by the MAGA support provided to those candidates. Two years ago, Politico reported that AIPAC was the "biggest source of Republican money flowing into competitive Democratic primaries."

Not so long ago, a candidate in a Democratic primary would consider AIPAC support for their opponent to be bad news. Today, such a candidate is more than likely to immediately begin attacking their opponent for that support. This reflects a significant change in attitudes among Democratic voters regarding both AIPAC and Israel. AIPAC has never been hesitant to hide its financial support for candidates, but now the organization is forced to take even more evasive maneuvers to keep its funding below the radar. If such funding becomes public, it is likely to be the kiss of death for the recipient.