The American Israel Public Affairs Committee was an unusual group that spent the most time outside of the Democratic primary in 2022. AIPAC, the Republican mega-donor-backed organization committed to upholding the US government’s strong backing for Israel’s far-right government, is planning to spend an astounding $100 million through its super PAC, the United Democracy Project, this year.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee was an unusual group that spent the most time outside of the Democratic primary in 2022. AIPAC, the Republican mega-donor-backed organization committed to upholding the US government’s strong backing for Israel’s far-right government, is planning to spend an astounding $100 million through its super PAC, the United Democracy Project, this year.
Politico (6/9/24) claimed that AIPAC “is the main source of Republican money going into competitive Democratic primaries this year.” In the Democratic primary, AIPAC’s UDP is “by far the biggest outside entity, with more money flowing from UDP than the next 10 greatest spenders combined.”
Although UDP is the primary tool of conservative donors to manipulate Democratic primaries, media headlines characterize it as “pro-Israel,” frequently omitting any mention of its right-wing backing. Unlike other right-wing organizations, AIPAC has the cover to participate in the Democratic primary thanks to this conspicuous exclusion.
funds from billionaires on the right-wing
I just saw this unfold in a nearby congressional district. On May 14, many Democratic primary voters went to the polls unaware that state Sen. Sarah Elfreth, a leading candidate for Maryland’s dependably blue 3rd Congressional District, was backed by right-wing billionaires through AIPAC’s super PAC.
Voters were kept in the dark due to inadequate reporting. A Washington Post (5/14/24) story on election day, for example, waited until the 21st paragraph to mention that the UDP had spent nearly $4 million on the race; then the Post swiftly added: “The United Democracy Project says it takes money from both Republicans and Democrats.”
That last sentence is technically correct, but also deceptive.
While UDP’s funders hail from both parties, they share an elite status: Nearly 60% of them are CEOs and corporate honchos, In These Times (6/3/24) found. “But in no world could you even call this a bipartisan group of benefactors. It’s Republicans who know what they’re doing,” wrote Slate’s Alexander Sammon (2/7/24), in a story headlined, “There Sure Are a Lot of Republican Billionaires Funding the Democratic Primaries.” Sammon found that only one of the top ten donors to UDP “can even plausibly be called a regular Democratic booster.”
Among those Republican billionaires, as researched by the muckraking news outlet Sludge (3/4/24): Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, who has given UDP $3 million and donated around $65 million to Republican groups over the past decade, including $17 million to Trump super PACs; hedge fund manager Paul Singer, who has given UDP $2 million and contributed millions more to Republican causes; and WhatsApp founder Jan K.
Despite considerable Republican funding, the UDP spends virtually solely on Democratic primaries. (The UDP’s parent group, AIPAC, has a broader focus and supports numerous Republicans, including over 100 congressmembers who voted to overturn the 2020 election, via a separate political action committee.)
In the May 14 piece, however, the Post never used its own authoritative voice to impart the above facts to readers—many of whom, as Democratic primary voters, would be outraged to find that right-wing financiers were secretly supporting a Democratic candidate. The Post secretly helped Sarah Elfreth win by playing foolish in front of her conservative supporters.
‘What is wrong with Washington’
Of course, newspapers are supposed to be fair, so the Post gave Elfreth’s opponent room to criticize AIPAC’s millions—but even here, the coverage was biased.
The enormous spending by the UDP “prompted the Dunn campaign to accuse Elfreth of taking ‘dark money’ and lumping her in with far-right Republicans,” according to the Post.
By having Harry Dunn, rather than the Post, bring up Elfreth’s Republican support, the Post reduced an explosive issue to a mere allegation from a political opponent.
The Post then went on to challenge not only Dunn’s assertion but also the candidate himself. (Dunn is a former Capitol Police officer who received national recognition for repelling January 6 insurgents.)
The Post wrote:
The Dunn campaign’s attempt to link Elfreth, an established Democrat, to Trump supporters irritated some Maryland officials. According to Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson, the current situation in Washington is not conducive to a more productive US Congress.[Who] claimed that the implication demonstrated Dunn’s lack of political experience.
Dark money
The Post report, while worrisome, was not exceptional. If anything, the Baltimore Banner’s coverage was subpar.
In the month preceding the primary, the UDP spent more than $100,000 every day to support Elfreth. This spurred other candidates to criticize the infusion of outside Republican funding. However, Rick Hutzell of the Banner merely yawned in response to their protests (5/12/24). “Criticizing an opponent’s money is not new,” he added.
Hutzell then began teaching Elfreth’s opponents, but not with much accuracy. “This is not dark money,” he said. “UDP discloses its funders.”
At least Hutzell got the second portion correct.
“The UDP is legally required to reveal its direct contributors,” noted HuffPost’s Daniel Marans (4/3/24), “but it may take funds from corporations and charities whose sources are not known.”
In other words, if a contributor wanted to fund Elfreth anonymously, they might have done so by having a non-disclosing body, such as AIPAC, forward their gift to UDP.
“If these MAGA funders channeled their money through AIPAC or another group, the individual donors would not be known,” Craig Holman, a campaign finance analyst with Public Citizen, told FAIR. “This is truly dark money.”
‘Forever influencing her worldviews.’
It was unclear why AIPAC was interested in this campaign in the first place, given that the two top candidates, Elfreth and Dunn, appeared to have similar views on Israel.
When questioned about this, a UDP spokesperson (Guardian, 5/14/22) stated that there were “some significant anti-Israel candidates in this campaign who are not Harry Dunn, and we need to make sure that they do not make it to Congress.”
However, UDP did not indicate who was on its naughty list. Meanwhile, by the time UDP unleashed its millions, the election had already narrowed to a two-way tie, so all UDP was doing was obstructing Dunn, who is also pro-Israel.
According to Elfreth, UDP’s efforts perplexed her as well. When asked why the gang was supporting her, Elfreth told the Banner, “I honestly to God have no idea.”
No idea? Elfreth traveled to Israel for the first time four months before announcing her candidacy on what appears to have been an AIPAC trip. She visited “a kibbutz that was [later] assaulted by Hamas on October 7, an Iron Dome battery, a Hezbollah tunnel on the Lebanese border, the West Bank, and religious places,” according to Jewish Insider (4/3/24).
In endorsing Elfreth, Pro-Israel America PAC, an AIPAC-affiliated group, stated, “Sarah has traveled to Israel on a life-changing trip that will permanently shape her worldviews.” According to the group, Elfreth stated, “[I] walked away knowing that I believe—after millennia of the world turning its back on the Jewish people—that the State of Israel has the right to exist and defend itself.”
Whether or not Elfreth was aware of AIPAC’s assistance, one thing was certain: she was determined to keep the millions pouring her way. At a debate in April with 16 candidates on stage, “moderators asked the candidates if they would swear off corporate PAC money,” Maryland Matters (4/18/24) reported. “Only Elfreth remained sitting.”
She was wise to do so, as AIPAC’s millions can be decisive. They surely did two years ago in a nearby congressional district.
‘The advertisements began pouring in.’
Donna Edwards was set to return the House seat she had lost six years prior in 2022. “Then the advertising began pouring in,” the Intercept (7/20/22) reported.
[UDP] spent $6 million on TV ads, mailings, and other media… Other pro-Israel organizations contributed approximately $1 million more. The outcome was one of the most costly congressional primaries in history, with virtually all of the funds coming from outside the district in just a few weeks.
Edwards’ lead disappeared during the $7 million attack. She lost the Democratic primary to prosecutor Glenn Ivey, who was eager to applaud AIPAC following his victory.
I keep thinking about this election and wondering what would have happened if reporters had called out AIPAC for hijacking the local contest. At the very least, it would have made it more difficult for the organization to commit the same crime two years later on Elfreth’s behalf.
Collective amnesia
AIPAC’s continuous ability to hijack Democratic primaries is based on a collective amnesia that develops following each election. Unfortunately, reporters have demonstrated a willingness to help make this happen.
Last month, after Elfreth won, the limited coverage of AIPAC shrank.
Consider the May 14 Post item mentioned above. AIPAC was mentioned in the tenth paragraph, but after Elfreth won, the story was changed, and AIPAC was moved to the twenty-first paragraph.
That was better than the Post’s AP piece (5/14/24), which made no mention of AIPAC.
A Baltimore Sun (5/15/24) piece acknowledged AIPAC’s influence, but only after portraying Elfreth as a victim of big money by comparing her to Angela Alsobrooks, a candidate running against the largest self-funder in Senate primary history, liquor store billionaire David Trone. According to the Sun, Elfreth and Alsobrooks were not only competing against well-known figures but also had lower fundraising numbers than their opponents. This is only true if you exclude the assistance provided by the UDP to Elfreth; if that money is included, as the Sun later stated, she had a spending advantage of more than $1 million.
But, once again, the Banner took the cake. According to Hutzell’s post-election narrative (5/17/24), Elfreth was the victim, forced to suffer TV advertising targeting “her over a pro-Israel super PAC spending millions to assist her without her knowledge.”
Hutzell does not mention AIPAC until the 35th paragraph, and only in the context of Elfreth’s role as a campaign finance reform advocate.
She intends to pick up where US Representative John Sarbanes, whom she seeks to succeed, left off on campaign finance reform. Elfreth makes this final vow without irony, given the criticism she received for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s more than $4.5 million campaign on her behalf.
With coverage like this, by 2026, AIPAC will be well-positioned to continue manipulating Democratic primaries by quietly weaponizing right-wing dollars.
‘Israel is not a winning issue’
What is so cynical is that the UDP does not explain why it is spending millions on Democratic primaries—at least not until after the election.
In defending its support for Elfreth, the UDP focused on domestic issues such as abortion rights, climate change, and domestic violence—topics that are unlikely to be important to the UDP’s Republican funders. The UDP’s millions of dollars in commercials for Elfreth made no mention of Israel, as did the group’s ads against Donna Edwards two years previously. “They know that Israel is not a winning issue,” stated James Zogby (In These Times, June 3, 24).
However, once the election was completed, AIPAC said that Elfreth’s victory demonstrated that it is progressive to “stand with the Jewish state as it faces aggression from the Iranian regime and its terrorist affiliates.”
AIPAC’s right-wing donors were fully aware of their actions when they supported Elfreth. And so did Elfreth, despite her profession of ignorance. Reporters were aware of the score, even if their coverage did not reflect it. Only the voters were kept in the dark.
