How an AIPAC Endorsement Became a Liability

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has long been a fixture on Washington’s lobbying scene, with its annual conventions drawing politicians and activists from across the ideological spectrum. For decades, an endorsement from AIPAC was considered a badge of honor, signaling to voters that a candidate was committed to strengthening the US-Israel relationship.

However, in recent years, this calculus has changed dramatically. As progressive Democrats have increasingly made their voices heard on issues like Palestine and Israel, AIPAC’s brand has become a liability for some candidates. The group’s attempts to influence elections through large-scale spending have drawn scrutiny from voters and pundits alike.

A Changing Landscape: Why AIPAC’s Influence is Fading

The shift against AIPAC began around 2018, when a new generation of progressive Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar started winning elections. These lawmakers were unapologetic about their views on Israel-Palestine, and their success seemed to prompt AIPAC into action.

In practical terms, an AIPAC endorsement was once a coveted prize for candidates. It carried no material reward – just $5,000 in campaign funds – but its symbolic value was immense. Candidates could tout their inclusion on AIPAC’s list of endorsees as proof of their commitment to the US-Israel relationship.

However, after October 7, 2023, when a devastating attack on Gaza and Israel sparked widespread condemnation, that calculus changed. The fact that many Democrats felt pressured to distance themselves from AIPAC in the aftermath highlighted the group’s waning influence.

The Dark Money Connection: How AIPAC is Laundering Funds Through Shell PACs

AIPAC’s attempts to wield influence through large-scale spending have become increasingly transparent – and contentious. According to experts, the group has created a network of shell PACs to launder money into elections. These pop-up organizations receive millions from AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project, before sending that cash to other PACs running ads in targeted campaigns.

This approach allows AIPAC to maintain plausible deniability about its involvement in specific elections. In the Illinois primaries, for example, AIPAC set up two shell PACs – Elect Chicago Women and Affordable Chicago Now – which received millions from United Democracy Project before distributing that money into local contests.

What This Means for the Democratic Party

The backlash against AIPAC’s influence is a symptom of broader changes within the Democratic Party. As progressive Democrats continue to challenge the party’s long-held stances on issues like Israel-Palestine, AIPAC’s brand has become increasingly toxic.

In the Illinois primary election, Rep. Abdul El-Sayed repeatedly criticized his opponent Haley Stevens’ ties to AIPAC. This marked a significant shift in Democratic politics, where candidates are now openly criticizing their opponents’ connections to AIPAC.

For Democratic leaders, this development presents a choice: either distance themselves from AIPAC’s increasingly divisive politics or continue to court its support – and risk alienating key constituencies within the party.

The Future of US-Israel Relations

As Democrats grapple with the implications of AIPAC’s decline, they must also confront the deeper issues driving this shift. The changing attitudes towards the US-Israel relationship are a product of decades of activism and advocacy – as well as the increasingly dire circumstances in Gaza and Israel.

According to experts, “The numbers are clear: large numbers of Americans now view the US-Israel relationship negatively.” This trend is driven by growing concerns about human rights abuses in Palestine, the Israeli government’s policies towards Palestinians, and the broader implications for American foreign policy.

In this context, AIPAC’s fading influence may be seen as both a symptom and a harbinger of deeper changes within American politics. As the party continues to shift leftward on issues like Palestine and Israel, its leaders will need to navigate a rapidly shifting landscape – one where the old certainties of bipartisanship and consensus are giving way to new fault lines and divisions.

Ultimately, AIPAC’s decline is not just about money or politics – but about the deeper values and priorities that shape American democracy. As the party reckons with its past and present on issues like Israel-Palestine, it will need to confront some fundamental questions: what does it mean to be a democratic party in an era of growing global complexity? And what role should groups like AIPAC play in shaping America’s foreign policy – or not playing any role at all?