Published: 7 January 2022
Last updated: 4 March 2024
DAN COLEMAN: America’s leading Jewish advocacy body is forming two new committees, one of which will have unlimited spending power to back pro-Israel candidates
ON DECEMBER 16, America’s most prominent Jewish advocacy body, American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), announced that it was forming two new entities aimed at more directly influencing elections: a Political Action Committee (PAC) which can contribute up to $US5000 per candidate, and a Super PAC, which will be able to make unlimited independent expenditures to influence an election.
As AIPAC president Betsy Berns Korn tweeted when announcing the move, “the DC. political environment has been undergoing profound change. Hyper-partisanship, high congressional turnover, and the exponential growth in the cost of campaigns now dominate the landscape. The AIPAC PAC will highlight and support current pro-Israel candidates and members of Congress.”
AIPAC spokesman Marshall Wittmann added in an email: “The creation of a PAC and a super PAC is an opportunity to significantly deepen and strengthen the involvement of the pro-Israel community in politics.”
AIPAC has more than 100,000 members, a network of regional offices, and a vast pool of donors. Without the affiliated PACs, the lobby could not raise funds directly. Up until now, that has been left to its membership, and the amount of money they channel to political candidates can be difficult to track.
Despite the explanation given by AIPAC leaders, observers of Israeli politics in the US might wonder how much stronger their involvement could be. In an in-depth analysis of AIPAC published in 2014 in The New Yorker, journalist Connie Bruck concludes that “the influence of AIPAC, like that of the lobbies for firearms, banking, defence, and energy interests, has long been a feature of politics in Washington.”
Any member of Congress knows that AIPAC is associated indirectly with significant amounts of campaign spending if you’re with them.
Bruck described a sophisticated process whereby AIPAC recruits members in congressional districts throughout the US who act as bundlers for $5000 contributions from supporters of Israel across the country. Often totalling up to six-figure contributions, these donations can have a powerful impact on candidates.
For example, in 1984, the current Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican) narrowly defeated an AIPAC-supported opponent. Afterwards, as reported by Bruck, McConnell met with AIPAC officials and asked: “Let me be very clear. What do I need to do to make sure that the next time around I get the community support?”
That same year, AIPAC opposed the re-election of Senator Charles Percy (R-IL) and supported his opponent, Paul Simon. Simon was victorious, leading AIPAC’s then executive director Thomas Dine to crow: “Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And American politicians - those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire - got the message.”
One candidate who got the message was former Congressman Brian Baird, who first ran for Congress in 1996 as a Democrat. He told Connie Bruck, in her article, that “in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money. And you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that…
“Any member of Congress knows that AIPAC is associated indirectly with significant amounts of campaign spending if you’re with them, and significant amounts against you if you’re not with them.” for Baird, AIPAC-connected money amounted to about $US200,000 in each of his races for election: “and that’s two hundred thousand going your way, versus the other way: a four-hundred-thousand-dollar swing.”
But much has changed in recent years that might lead AIPAC’s board to conclude that more direct participation in elections is now called for.
As documented in detail by Bruck, AIPAC locked horns with the Obama Administration over policy toward Israeli settlements and toward Iran. In addition, AIPAC, which for decades had moved with the tides of changing Labor and Likud governments in Israel, became so closely associated with Netanyahu that Bruck concluded “AIPAC has sided strongly with Netanyahu against Obama”.
In 2020, Democratic Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren declined invitations to AIPAC’s annual meeting. The past two cycles have seen the election of progressive Democrats who are critical of Israel and vocal in their support for Palestinian rights.
Surveying these developments, Mitchell Plitnick, a US foreign policy analyst, told Jewish Currents that one reason for the creation of the PACs is to “make sure there’s not another Eliot Engel,” referring to the former Democrat Congressman and “AIPAC darling” who lost his seat in 2020 to fellow Democrat Jamaal Bowman, a critic of Israel’s human rights abuses.
Plitnick believes the media capabilities of the Super Pac will be critical, telling Jewish Currents, “AIPAC is recognising how bad Israel’s name is these days, the increasing recognition of Israel as an apartheid state, and one that is not interested in resolving the issue of Palestinian rights. The Super PAC is there to change that.”
The continuing dominance of the right wing in Israeli politics puts AIPAC on a collision course with changing attitudes among American Jews.
Progressive supporters of Israel were immediately concerned about the announcement of the new PACs. In an email to members, the J Street advocacy group (AIPAC’s more progressive competitor) declared: “we’re going to make clear that their ongoing effort to defend the occupation and run interference on behalf of the settlement movement actively undermines the pro-Israel, pro-peace vision that the majority of Jewish Americans share - a just, democratic Israel living in peace and security alongside an independent Palestinian state.
“In recent years, AIPAC has smeared progressive Democrats as terrorist sympathisers, attacked those speaking out against settlements… and continues to lobby lawmakers on both sides against even the mildest steps to counter settler violence, curtail settlement expansion or speak out against discriminatory demolitions,” J Street continued.
“If you’ve ever wondered how the politics around Israel became so toxic, divisive and polluted with misinformation, this is how -- and this new spending will only make it worse. We have to push back.”
It seems unlikely that the new PACs are necessary to sustain support for Israel in on Capitol Hill, at least not in the immediate future. After all, last September’s bill to send US$1 billion to Israel to shore up the Iron Dome missile defence system was passed by Congress with 420-9 in favour.
But AIPAC may be looking beyond Congressional votes. This year’s Pew Survey of Jewish attitudes in the US found that American Jews are identifying less with Israel and becoming less comfortable with US government support of Israel. This is even more the case among younger Jews.
Given that for AIPAC, pro-Israel translates into unequivocal support of the Israeli government, the continuing dominance of the right wing in Israeli politics puts AIPAC on a collision course with changing attitudes among American Jews and, over the long term, with the increasing relevance of J Street.
AIPAC characterises the US-Israel relationship as one of “sister democracies dedicated to the rule of law, human rights, and freedoms of speech and religion.”
However, these qualities have come under increasing criticism: is Israel truly a democracy, given the status of the Palestinians? Can Israel truly be said to be dedicated to human rights? Is there dedication to freedom of speech when it comes to criticising Israel?
AIPAC’s bet is that increasing and more direct spending will tilt the answer to these questions in its direction and toward an Israeli right that seems likely to stay in power. At a time when American politics is, as AIPAC Executive Director Korn put it, increasingly “hyper-partisan”, AIPAC is going all-out to ensure that its notion of “pro-Israel” remains the consensus in Congress.
Photo: AIPAC president Betsy Korn (Jewish News Syndicate)
