AIPAC's Growing Spending Faces Scrutiny in Democratic Primaries

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a long-standing lobbying organization advocating for policies that strengthen the U.S.-Israel partnership, has become a prominent and often contentious issue in Democratic politics. In recent election cycles, the group has escalated its involvement beyond traditional lobbying to actively influencing electoral outcomes through substantial financial expenditures in primary campaigns.

Once primarily focused on lobbying members of Congress, AIPAC began engaging in electoral politics approximately five years ago. This shift appears to be a response to the rise of progressive Democrats, such as members of "The Squad" elected in 2018, who hold critical views on the U.S.-Israel relationship. AIPAC's strategy now involves using super PACs to fund advertisements and other political engagement, particularly in primaries, to counter the influence of candidates whose stances on Israel differ from its own.

According to David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, AIPAC is deploying millions of dollars to oppose candidates who criticize Israel's actions. These expenditures sometimes manifest as advertisements that do not directly mention Israel, making their origin and purpose less apparent to the public. This tactic has led to accusations of "dark money" influencing elections.

AIPAC, through its super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP), has reported raising substantial sums, with figures indicating around $100 million raised this election cycle. The UDP has spent approximately $28 million on independent expenditures like television ads and mailers. However, these figures may represent an undercount, as the UDP has also channeled about $9 million to other PACs.

A notable strategy involves the transfer of funds from pro-Israel PACs to newly created "pop-up" or shell PACs. These entities are formed for specific elections and then funded by AIPAC or affiliated groups. The money is then used by these subsidiary PACs to run ads, obscuring the direct link to AIPAC. For instance, in Illinois primaries for four open seats, the UDP reportedly sent millions to PACs named Elect Chicago Women and Affordable Chicago Now, which then funded ads supporting certain candidates.

In some instances, this strategy has drawn significant attention. In one Illinois race, the revelation that AIPAC was behind the "Elect Chicago Women" and "Affordable Chicago Now" ads reportedly harmed the campaign of candidate Laura Fine, who finished third despite substantial financial backing. Other races, where the connection was less explicit, saw candidates supported by these PACs achieve victory.

This approach to campaign finance is described as unusual within the political landscape, though similar tactics have been observed to a lesser extent in previous election cycles. The current approach involves not only pop-up PACs but also established PACs receiving funds from AIPAC and related organizations.

AIPAC has also faced criticism for its responses to public commentary. When Senator Bernie Sanders criticized the Israeli government's actions in Gaza, AIPAC characterized his statement as a "hate-filled rant and blood libel." This reaction, and the organization's increasing public engagement, has led to discussions about how AIPAC links criticism of Israel to accusations of antisemitism. Critics argue that this conflation distracts from broader concerns about campaign finance and the influence of money in politics, as well as the policy implications of U.S. funding for Israel.

The evolving landscape means that an AIPAC endorsement, once a significant asset, has become a liability for some Democratic candidates, particularly as public attitudes towards the U.S.-Israel relationship shift.