AIPAC’s New Strategy: Less Visibility, Same Ambitions
AIPAC has become such a liability for politicians, and those aspiring to politics, that the pro-Israel lobby is tweaking how it funnels money to candidates.
AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, sent a letter this week to members announcing it will no longer directly endorse candidates or give them money through its political action committee, or PAC.
But this doesn’t mean the organization has any intention of dialing back its influence on politics. AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC, United Democracy Project, will continue operating, and the organization will still organize individual donors’ contributions to candidates. According to the letter it sent to members, “AIPAC staff and local leaders will continue working with you on political fundraising efforts, recommending contributions to candidates who are worthy of your support, and ensuring your resources are deployed in the most effective ways possible.”
United Democracy Project raised more than $112 million this election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission filings. “Super PACs can spend unlimited amounts on independent expenditures, such as ads,” The Wall Street Journal pointed out.
This move is likely a response to growing resentment among Americans toward Israel as a result of its military campaign in Gaza and the outsized influence many believe Israel has on U.S. foreign policy.
Democrats Say No
The Wall Street Journal reported that multiple Democrats are vowing to say no to AIPAC money:
The changes come as Aipac has become increasingly controversial, particularly among Democrats. Prominent Democratic lawmakers — including Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Ruben Gallego of Arizona, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom — have sworn off or pledged not to accept campaign contributions from Aipac, as have many progressives.
Only one New Jersey federal lawmaker has taken more money from AIPAC than Booker’s $851,721, and that’s Republican Representative Tom Kean, according to Track AIPAC. Gallego has taken $141,670.
In an article reporting Newsom’s claim that he’s never taken AIPAC money and never will, The Times of Israel also noted that “signs are piling up that support for Israel is a mounting liability for national politicians.”
Trita Parsi, a Middle East foreign-policy analyst and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said on X, “AIPAC’s name now carries such toxicity that the group doesn’t want its own name on its political donations.” Democratic strategist Jim Manley said AIPAC had become “radioactive” for many candidates.
Money Talks
In its letter, AIPAC brags that it “helped 290 pro-Israel candidates win their elections and helped defeat 29 detractors.” Among those detractors is one of the most constitutionally obedient congressman, Kentucky Republican Representative Thomas Massie. He said of AIPAC’s announcement, “What a joke! AIPAC has been funneling money through ‘democracy engine’ instead of doing direct donations and bundling. I introduced a bill that would require AIPAC to disclose their influence campaigns just as others do under FARA.”
Massie lost his reelection bid this year in the most expensive House race in history. A total of $37 million poured into that race, with about $19 million against Massie. United Democracy Project, the AIPAC PAC, was responsible for $4.1 million of that. Pro-Israel neocon and hedge fund manager Paul Singer put up another $3 million.
AIPAC bragged about its role in bringing down Massie in a statement, saying, “Our community was proud to support Gallrein [Massie’s opponent] and help ensure Massie’s defeat.” In the statement, AIPAC admits a role in several other races.
Foreign Agent?
While AIPAC is not a registered foreign agent, many, including Massie, believe it should be treated as a foreign agent. A primary goal of the organization is to foster and create foreign policies and cultural narratives that favor closer ties with the nation of Israel, ties that are contrary to the prescription of early American statesmen. As Alexander Hamilton wrote:
These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
Hamilton, who served as treasury secretary in the George Washington administration, famously clashed with then-Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson over how best to remain neutral in France’s war with England. This is what prompted Washington to dedicate portions of his Farewell Address to warnings about foreign influence and entanglement. He worried that foreign influence would create division at home and corrupt American lawmakers. Washington said:
Such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to the be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.
Avoid Entanglements
Washington summarized that the best posture toward foreign nations is to try and get along with all of them, do business with those that are willing, and have as little political involvement as possible:
Today’s views on foreign entanglements are nothing like the ones Washington prescribed 230 years ago. And the Israel lobby is far from the only one that puts immense effort in creating policies favorable to other countries. China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, South Korea, Qatar, and others are listed as spending more than Israel on foreign lobbying. But keep in mind that AIPAC is not legally considered a foreign agent, even though it clearly works toward the interests of another country.
Whatever the country, foreign influence carries great risks. As Washington pointed out, playing favorites with certain nations “gives to ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite Nation) facility to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity.”
