NYT: Less than five years after its entry into U.S. political campaigns, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is now one of the best-funded players in the midterm elections. It has also become one of the most polarizing.
AIPAC has raised $233 million to support its friends and attack its perceived foes, even as public sentiment has shifted sharply against its singular cause: American support for Israel.
The group’s decision to become a major player in campaigns has alienated some former allies and left others ducking AIPAC’s support. Some candidates have worn opposition from AIPAC as a badge of honor. Some not only refuse money from AIPAC, but also refuse to accept money from its donors. The organization has increasingly become a campaign issue unto itself. This summer, Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York described AIPAC as part of a group of “monsters” that he said were too powerful in American politics.
Donors and allies called for changes inside AIPAC. If they were going to persuade Congress to continue to back Israel, they believed they would need new methods. Chief among them: a new super PAC, the United Democracy Project, that could spend unlimited amounts in elections.
“There was a real sense of urgency,” Mr. Dorton said, to oppose members of Congress who “were actively hostile to Israel and recruiting candidates.”
He added, “There was a real sense that what AIPAC had been doing in the past was not sufficient.” Elliot Brandt, AIPAC’s chief executive, said in 2023 interview that the “old business model” of the organization — cultivating longstanding relationships with lawmakers from both parties, often taking them on trips to Israel — was no longer effective in Washington.
“We had the most extraordinary business model for an America that increasingly didn’t exist with rampant turnover,” he said, referring to Congress. He lamented a new “hyper-partisanship and the rise of real detractors.”
But the idea of taking sides in elections was immediately a
source of friction, as some of AIPAC’s longtime allies warned against getting
sucked into bitter and divisive party politics.
When AIPAC released the names of 120 members of Congress it
intended to back in the 2022 elections, the list — which included more than two
dozen Republicans who had voted against certifying the 2020 presidential
election — enraged Democrats and even some Republicans.
Some donors said they had confronted AIPAC leaders in
private meetings to register their opposition. Some vowed to stop supporting
the group entirely.
“I would describe myself as a Zionist and a staunch
liberal,” said Leonard Gregory, a longtime donor from San Diego who has stopped
writing checks to AIPAC. “Suddenly they didn’t reflect my views on the world.”
Powerful Connections
AIPAC’s electoral strategy, which has largely focused on
defeating progressive Democrats in primary elections, is shaped almost entirely
by two men who have spent most of their professional lives working for AIPAC:
Mr. Brandt, 57, the chief executive who meets frequently with top Israeli
officials, and Rob Bassin, 64, a well-connected tactician who runs the super
PAC. Mr. Bassin has worked for years as a Washington insider, while Mr. Brandt
spent more than a decade in California as a regional director for AIPAC.
Both men maintain deep relationships on Capitol Hill, and
while they have angered some top Democrats, they remain particularly close to
several moderate lawmakers, including Senators Adam Schiff and Jacky Rosen and
Representatives Josh Gottheimer, Jared Moskowitz and Haley Stevens. They are
close to some Republicans too, including Senator Susan Collins and Rep. Mike
Lawler.
Mr. Brandt and Mr. Bassin, who declined to be interviewed by
The New York Times, consider themselves moderate Democrats. They display a
brash confidence to allies, unrepentant about any perceived strategic mistakes,
according to numerous people who have worked closely with them. In private
conversations, they make the same arguments AIPAC has maintained in public,
where every win is a vindication of their strategy and even losses can be
portrayed as wins.
AIPAC employs dozens of staff members focused on
fund-raising, and Mr. Brandt routinely courts top donors. Those who give
$250,000 a year to AIPAC efforts can be invited to summer events for AIPAC’s “Trustees
Circle” in Aspen and The Hamptons.
Among AIPAC’s most important backers are several who have
given more than $1 million to the super PAC, including Robert Kraft, the owner
of the New England Patriots; Paul Singer, the billionaire hedge fund manager;
and Haim Saban, a Hollywood mogul who was a major backer of Hillary Clinton.
The AIPAC board, made up of nearly 50 donors, meets weekly
and is seen as extraordinarily disciplined, never voicing public criticism
about the group’s strategy and only rarely doing so in private.
Like many of their strongest supporters and donors, Mr.
Brandt and Mr. Bassin believe that the vilification AIPAC has faced in some
quarters is a symptom of the anti-Zionism and antisemitism they believe is
growing in the United States. They have told supporters that they simply need
to double down.
And there are signs that many of those supporters agree:
AIPAC just had two of its best fund-raising years on record. This cycle, the
super PAC has raised about $110 million, nearly a third of which came directly
from AIPAC, which is a separate nonprofit lobbying organization. AIPAC itself
raised about $113 million from donors from late 2024 to late 2025 and holds
more assets on hand as of September 2025 than it ever has before, according to
a new tax return obtained by The Times.
‘Like a Murder-Suicide’
Even many who support AIPAC’s goals had a hard time making
sense of its first target in the 2026 midterms: Tom Malinowski, a Democrat from
New Jersey who has been widely seen as an ally of Israel.
AIPAC’s super PAC spent about $2.3 million in an effort
against Mr. Malinowski, a former congressional member who had said he “would
not deny anything Israel needs to defend itself” but has also been sharply
critical of the Netanyahu government and left open the possibility of placing
limits on aid to the country.
In an interview, Mr. Malinowski said he was shocked to have
suddenly become a target of AIPAC’s ire, especially because the eventual
winner, Analilia Mejia, had said she believed that Israel had committed
genocide in Gaza.
Mr. Malinowski, a human rights expert and former diplomat,
said AIPAC officials told him directly that their supporters worried he would
be viewed as more legitimate in shaping future policy than someone so
stridently critical of Israel’s government.
“I was a bigger threat because my position was more moderate
and more rooted in pro-Israel arguments,” he said.
“What they did in my race was like a murder-suicide,” Mr.
Malinowski added. Many of his former colleagues, he said, believed that AIPAC
used his race to send a broader message: threatening other members of Congress
who might consider pulling back on their full-throated support for Israel.
No comments:
Post a Comment