Follow us on social

google cta
Aipac

AIPAC's new strategy: Spend millions on elections, don't mention Israel

The lobbying org's first foray into electoral politics has been marked by spending GOP megadonor dollars on Democratic primaries. Why?

Analysis | Reporting | Middle East
google cta
google cta

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s announcement late last year that it would launch a super PAC, the United Democracy Project, and endorse candidates sent shockwaves through foreign policy and advocacy communities. 

AIPAC had long refrained from engaging in electoral politics, preferring instead to lobby members of Congress to support maintaining Israel’s nearly $4 billion in annual military and other aid from the United States and to oppose diplomatic efforts to constrain Iran’s nuclear program. 

But now that the super PAC is active, raising over $27 million, and running ads to support or oppose Democratic primary candidates for the 2022 midterms, it’s becoming clear what UDP’s fundraising and spending strategy is: raise money from hawkish Trump supporting GOP big donors and spend on ads to benefit Democratic candidates who won’t question U.S. policy towards the U.S.’s biggest foreign military aid recipient.

Curiously though, the ads paid for by UDP, affiliated with the largest pro-Israel group in the country, don’t mention  the groups’ central issue: Israel.

That might be because AIPAC’s central issue, Israel, has remarkably little salience with U.S. voters. Polling conducted between 2010 and 2020 by the J Street, a Democratic Party aligned group often at odds with AIPAC on a host of issues including Iran nuclear deal and aid to the Palestinian Authority, reveals that Jewish voters — a demographic often expected to prioritize candidates’ views on Israel — place an extremely low priority on Israel-related issue in elections. In a decade of polling, J Street found that Israel was a top-two voting issue for between -four and ten percent of Jewish voters.

In June, AIPAC rankled Democrats and earned extensive coverage in Jewish American and Israeli news outlets by endorsing 37 Republicans who voted against certifying President Joe Biden’s election victory.

AIPAC defended its decision to endorse the candidates to Ron Kampeas at the Jewish Telegraph Agency. “As a single-issue organization, we remain focused on our mission of building bipartisan support in Congress to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship,” AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittman told Kampeas.

But AIPAC’s super PAC didn’t seem to get that message. Their ads don’t mention Israel, AIPAC’s “single-Issue,” and explicitly made an issue of the contested election in an ad boosting Michigan State Senator Adam Hollier. “When Donald Trump tried to throw out Detroit’s presidential vote, Adam Hollier fought alongside Governor Whitmer to stop him,” said an ad supporting Hollier in the August 2 Democratic primary for Michigan’s 13th district. Hollier lost the primary but the ad revealed the cynical opportunism behind AIPAC’s electoral strategy that leads the organization to endorse candidates who opposed certifying the election results while running ads promoting another candidate’s work to certify the election, all while avoiding mention of the “single issue” that qualifies candidates from both sides of the contested election to earn AIPAC’s support.

Last week, AIPAC PAC Director Marilyn Rosenthal and United Democracy Project CEO Rob Bassin answered questions about their electoral strategy from Jewish Insider. Rosenthal said their campaign work  “is allowing us to clearly define who is and who is not pro-Israel.”

When asked about Israel not playing a significant role in AIPAC’s campaign messaging, Bassin responded, “I would just say about that, first of all, the issues that UDP has focused on have been the issues that are foremost on the minds of voters.” 

“That being said, I think the views of the candidates on the U.S.-Israel relationship have been made clear on their websites and their position papers and in their voting records,” he added.

Perhaps the most telling aspect of UDP’s work has been where the group raises and spends its money. Two of UDP’s biggest individual funders are Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus and hedge fund manager Paul Singer. Both contributed $1 million to the UDP super PAC. Both are Trump backers and Republican Party megadonors, regularly contributing millions of dollars to Republican candidates in each election cycle. That’s in sharp contrast to where UDP spends its money: Democratic primaries.

UDP’s decision to influence Democratic primaries in order to defeat incumbents deemed inufficiently pro-Israel, with funds partially originating from Republican megadonors, while actively avoiding mention of the group’s organizing principle — “the belief that America’s partnership with our democratic ally Israel benefits both countries” — may be a symptom of the Democratic Party’s drift away from unconditional support for Israel.

The UDP did not respond to a request for comment about why their campaign ads avoid mention of Israel.

Only 0.5 percent of Democrats listed Israel as their first choice when asked to “[n]ame the TWO countries that you think are the most important allies of the United States today,” according to a University of Maryland survey conducted in March. Only 0.9 percent listed Israel as their second choice. (The most popular choices by Democrats were The United Kingdom and Canada.) Among Republicans, 20 percent listed Israel as their first choice selection and 9.3 percent listed Israel as their second choice.

With those starkly contrasting numbers, it’s clear that AIPAC has its work cut out for it in boosting its preferred candidates in Democratic primaries. Under the circumstances, it makes good sense to use Republican megadonors’ money and make no mention of Israel if AIPAC wants to raise money and effectively engage Democratic voters.


The homepage of AIPAC's recently launched super PAC the United Democracy Project.
google cta
Analysis | Reporting | Middle East
Inside Israel's shadow campaign to win over American media
Top image credit: Noa Tishby poses for a photo in Jaffa in 2021 (Alon Shafransky/CC BY-SA 4.0)

Inside Israel's shadow campaign to win over American media

Washington Politics

Back in March 2011, the Israeli consulate in New York City had a problem. A group of soldiers from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) were coming to the U.S. on a PR trip, and Israeli officials needed help persuading influential media outlets to interview the delegation.

Luckily for the consulate, a new organization called Act For Israel, led by Israeli-American actor Noa Tishby, was prepared to swing into action. “[I]n mid March 2011, the New York Consulate requested our assistance,” Tishby’s organization wrote in a document revealed in a recent trove of leaked emails.

keep readingShow less
Volodymyr Zelenskyy Bart De Wever
Top image credit: President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy (R) and Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Belgium Bart De Weve in Kyiv, Ukraine When: 08 Apr 2025. Hennadii Minchenko/Ukrinform/Cover Images via REUTERS CONNECT

Europe could be on the hook for $160 billion to keep Ukraine afloat

Europe

Even if war ended tomorrow, Europe could be on the hook for 135 billion euros (nearly $160 billion) over the next two years to keep Ukraine afloat. Brussels does not appear to have a plan B up its sleeve.

I first warned in September 2024 that using immobilized Russian assets to fund war fighting in Ukraine would disincentivize Russia from suing for peace. Nothing has changed since then. Russia maintains the battlefield advantage, has the financial reserves, extremely low levels of debt by Western standards, and can afford to keep fighting, despite the human cost. Putin is self-evidently waiting the Europeans out, knowing they will run out of money before he does.

keep readingShow less
Unlike Cheney, at least McNamara tried to atone for his crimes
Top photo credit: Robert MacNamra (The Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum/public domain)

Unlike Cheney, at least McNamara tried to atone for his crimes

Washington Politics

“I know of no one in America better qualified to take over the post of Defense Secretary than Bob McNamara,” wrote Ford chief executive Henry Ford II in late 1960.

It had been only fifty-one days since the former Harvard Business School whiz had become the automaker’s president, but now he was off to Washington to join President-elect John F. Kennedy’s brain trust. At 44, about a year older than JFK, Robert S. McNamara had forged a reputation as a brilliant, if arrogant, manager and problem-solver with a computer-like mastery of facts and statistics. He seemed unstoppable.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.