The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, has become a source of controversy in the race for the US midterm elections scheduled for 3 November, after expanding its spending to support some candidates and attack others. The move has alienated some former allies, while candidates have rejected its support or money from donors linked to it.
Funding puts AIPAC at the forefront of the race
AIPAC raised about $233 million to support candidates in the forthcoming elections and deployed its resources to attack their opponents, according to a report by The New York Times. The volume of organised funding placed it among the leading financial forces in the election race, but also made it one of the bodies most likely to fuel political polarisation.
Despite the departure of several former allies, AIPAC leaders remain committed to a long-term strategy aimed at electing a Congress that, in their view, can confront what they regard as existential threats to Israel. The organisation is also continuing a strategic review of its political operations and assessing its tools for intervening in elections.
AIPAC still regards its independent political action committee, known as the United Democracy Project, as a central part of its activities. The committee’s spokesman, Patrick Dorton, said the shift in US attitudes towards Israel had accelerated significantly, adding that the organisation was learning from its successes and failures in its political work.
US consensus on supporting Israel wanes
The traditional consensus in the United States on supporting Israel began to weaken during the administration of former President Barack Obama, particularly after the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran. The decline later widened as Democrats increasingly criticised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and its policies.
The rise of progressive members of Congress who have criticised Israel since 2018 also concerned AIPAC, prompting it to adopt new ways of influencing election results. These tools included creating a committee with the ability to spend unlimited sums in election races. The organisation’s decision to expand its electoral intervention led to early friction with its allies.
Election support choices trigger donor objections
The dispute came to the fore in 2022, when AIPAC announced the names of 120 members of Congress it intended to support, including Republicans who had voted against certifying the results of the 2020 US presidential election. Donors said they confronted the organisation’s leadership over their objections to those choices, while some halted their contributions.
Meanwhile, some candidates targeted by AIPAC began presenting the organisation’s opposition to them as a strength in their campaigns, rather than treating it as a political liability. AIPAC’s strategy focuses largely on trying to defeat progressive Democratic candidates in primary elections.
Election spending targets candidates who support or strongly criticise the bilateral relationship?
In New Jersey, it spent about $2.3 million against former congressman Tom Malinowski, despite his being regarded as a supporter of US-Israeli relations, before he lost the race to Analia Mejia. Malinowski said the targeting may have been a warning to other lawmakers about the consequences of breaking with AIPAC’s positions.
Former US ambassador Daniel Shapiro, for his part, said the decision to target Malinowski had harmed the cause the organisation says it defends. AIPAC’s largest financial intervention of the election season took place in Michigan, where it spent about $33 million in an attempt to defeat progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed in the Democratic Senate primary.
El-Sayed nevertheless defeated Haley Stevens, the candidate who had long enjoyed AIPAC’s support, prompting some donors to question the value of such heavy spending. AIPAC’s leadership nonetheless continued to defend its approach, stressing that its battle was a long-term one and that losing a single election race would not change its goal.
The expansion of its financial activity comes as debate within the Democratic Party intensifies over relations with Israel, while Democratic voters remain divided over Israeli policies, the war in Gaza and the future of US support for Israel.
