Two years ago, the brand awareness of AIPAC mostly swirled among political insiders. Today, AIPAC is an increasingly radioactive word and political liability.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a powerful bipartisan, unapologetic pro-Israel lobby. The genocide in Gaza awakened the general public to the outsized influence AIPAC exerts on members of Congress to unconditionally fund Israel. In Tuesday’s Illinois primary, my colleagues reported AIPAC spent close to $25 million on four Democratic U.S. House races.
Dark money is hardly a new phenomenon, but this election cycle opened up a number of seats — shaking the political landscape for years to come. Through political action committees, money supports campaigns without working directly with candidates. AIPAC money backed winners Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller in the 2nd District and former U.S. Rep. Melissa Bean in the 8th District. PACS working in the 9th and 7th districts didn’t see their preferred candidates win; Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss and state Rep. La Shawn Ford, D-Chicago, won in two crowded races.
“AIPAC is trying to claim victory in the wake of an election in which it refused to be truthful about its own role in that election. They [AIPAC officials] are trying to convince the country that they are a powerful political entity, and yet they didn’t have the backbone to tell voters what they were doing while they were doing it,” said political strategist Jake Lewis. “Their brand is toxic.”
The clandestine nature of AIPAC ads and mailers didn’t mention Israel. In fact, its PACS operated under progressive names to lure (or some say confuse) voters. Affordable Chicago Now supported Miller. Chicago Progressive Partnership worked against Kat Abughazaleh in the 9th District, while Elect Democratic Women Action Fund favored state Sen. Laura Fine, D-Glenview, in that race. United Democracy Project poured millions into backing Chicago City Treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin in the 7th.
Political strategist Joanna Klonsky said AIPAC’s policy agenda is “extremely unpopular, which is why they had to conceal their identities. Democrats do not want this war in Iran, and they don’t want to pay for bombs to drop on Gaza. They certainly don’t want to pay for any at the expense of their own health care or other public programs.”
Lewis and Klonsky advised the campaigns of state Sen. Robert Peters, D-Chicago, who lost in the 2nd, and Biss, who on election night triumphantly declared, “AIPAC found out the hard way: the 9th District is not for sale. May tonight be the last time I utter their name.“
Public awareness about AIPAC has grown over the last several years, and political candidates either embrace or denounce the group with consequences unimaginable even five years ago. The political calculation boils down to: Is taking big dollars a boost or a burden that will alienate some voters? But in the heavily Black 2nd District, where Miller bested Jesse Jackson Jr., AIPAC played less of a factor in the campaign.
“Communities with privilege have more opportunities to care about AIPAC than necessarily our community. The Black community should look at it a little bit more, but at the same time, our needs for our community are so urgent and in our face that AIPAC does not come to the priority list for why we’re voting. I think you’ll find that our community does not support a genocide and Gaza, but you’ll also find it’s not the motivating factor for our voting,” said political strategist Alex Sims-Jones.
AIPAC lobbyists court potential allies in part by sponsoring all-expense-paid trips to Israel for elected officials and their aides. Over the years, observers say AIPAC has skewed toward the right and the election results in Illinois and elsewhere demonstrate weakened standing. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found 44% of voters think the U.S. is too supportive of Israel — the highest percentage since the poll started asking in 2017.
Sabha Abour, another Chicago-based political strategist, said the Democratic Party is fragmented on Israel. So are Republicans.
“We see that in conservatives now, too, where you have pro-AIPAC conservatives and anti- AIPAC conservatives, and it’s not based off of antisemitism. It’s based off of the fact that people don’t want a foreign country to control their government,” Abour said. “There are some candidates who were anti-AIPAC who did lose, but the amount of money that was spent in these races and the amount of people that push the conversation to the left is a win for me.”
Natalie Y. Moore is a senior lecturer at Northwestern University.