The American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s decision to launch two separate political action committees has sent shock waves through the political landscape in the month since it was announced.
Now, former senior AIPAC officials are beginning to publicly caution against the decision, warning that it endangers the sense of political neutrality the group has attempted to cultivate over decades, as well as removing a long-maintained firewall between its lobbying and fundraising efforts.
They also express concern about the potential message of endorsing candidates who did not recognize the 2020 presidential election results, effectively prioritizing blanket support for Israel over support of American democracy.
Tom Dine served as AIPAC’s executive director from 1980 to 1993, largely overseeing its evolution into one of the more powerful lobbying organizations in the history of U.S. politics.
He says he does not understand what led AIPAC to believe that creating PACs was the proper path forward. “You have a grassroots operation that’s quite effective because it’s grassroots and decisions are locally made,” he notes.
Dine says he has been publicly supportive of AIPAC’s moves to dates but, henceforth, much of that will depend on how balanced its decisions are. “Right now, AIPAC is suffering from a point of view that it has become Republican. It has to show that it is fair to Democrats and Republicans, and that each decision adds to the strength of the organization,” he explains.
He recounts that AIPAC made an active choice not to create any PACs during his stewardship. When asked why it would change things now, he responds: “That’s a good question, and you’d have to ask the guys who made that decision. I haven’t seen a good explanation why.”
For Dine, even if AIPAC cites added flexibility or new realities on the ground, that does not necessarily make this the proper decision. “They’re going to have to prove the strength of the pro-Israel lobby has increased significantly by having these two PACs,” he says.
All about the Benjamins?
AIPAC’s announcement of this new poliitcal direction stated that it was meant to ensure the organization “could remain successful in an ever-changing Washington,” highlighting hyper partisanship, high congressional turnover and the exponential growth in the costs of campaigns. “The creation of a PAC and a Super-PAC is an opportunity to significantly deepen and strengthen the involvement of the pro-Israel community in politics. The PACs will work in a bipartisan way,” AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittman said following the announcement.
Douglas Bloomfield spent nine years as AIPAC’s legislative director and chief lobbyist. He believes the creation of PACs to donate to specific politicians’ election campaigns “removes a veil of neutrality, whether it was an accurate one or not,” that served the group for decades. “AIPAC has always maintained it only supports candidates based on their record. Now they’re rating and endorsing by sending money,” he says.
Another former AIPAC board member, speaking on condition of anonymity, describes this “firewall” between AIPAC’s lobbying efforts and money given as “the law of the land.”
“I was shocked they took off this firewall. It was one of the big premises of AIPAC as a pro-Israel lobby,” the board member says. Reflecting on how AIPAC navigated this tension over the years, the board member says they would go up to Congress with AIPAC’s tacit encouragement.
Bloomfield, who has been lobbying on Israel-related matters since 1970, admits that “members of Congress we met with always knew the ‘ka-ching factor’ – we’d walk in and they’d hear the cash register. But we had a good protection by only talking about the issues. It worked extremely well and protected the lobbyists from diversion from the issues.”
The former board member reflects the other end of this dynamic. “As board members and lay lobbyists of AIPAC, we were not allowed to give the impression that AIPAC had anything to do with fundraising for the members and candidates,” they say. “But as citizens and lay people, we can do what we want. AIPAC encouraged us to become ‘politically involved.’ That’s as far as they went officially.”
The ex-board member decries how AIPAC is now mixing money with its lobbying, lamenting that “when someone says ‘it’s all about the Benjamins,’ what is the answer?”
Bloomfield believes AIPAC’s “piss-poor relationship” with the Democratic Party, which has deteriorated over recent times, likely added pressure to enter the campaign space.
“I’ve gone to many Democratic offices who said they only see AIPAC interns or low-level staffers,” Bloomfield says. “During the Trump years, [AIPAC] treated them like they don’t exist. Now there’s a Democratic Congress and president who are not part of their fan club, and their past failure to maintain neutrality has come back to bite them on the tush.”
The board member notes that “AIPAC clearly thinks money talks. If AIPAC thinks money is going to repair its relationship with Democrats, that’s very shortsighted. There is always someone with more money, and generally Dems are focused on issues.”
Bloomfield warns that AIPAC’s moves will lead to pressure from the fringes of both parties. “Republicans will say ‘My guy ‘Fred the fascist’ always loved Israel and will vote for anything, and now you won’t give him money because Democrats hate him?’ How do they justify that? And you don’t even have to go that far out on the fringe.”
Dine, meanwhile, emphasizes that AIPAC will have to research every single potential candidate beyond their legislative record on Israel-related matters. “AIPAC’s PACs are going to have to look at these other issues too. If you provide money to an antidemocratic person, then you’re going to skew it.”
Bloomfield anticipates that AIPAC will attempt to navigate this partisan tension by initially endorsing candidates more toward the center, but believes they will face pressure from the leadership of both parties.
“Whether it’s the Squad on the left or the fascists on the right, if party leadership says ‘I need you to endorse this candidate who’s really in trouble,’ are you going to say ‘Sorry, can’t do it’?” he asks, adding that “in the past you could always say ‘That’s up to individual PACs and members.’ Now they will have an imprimatur that doesn’t help AIPAC.”
Some supporters and veterans of AIPAC see things differently.
Ester Kurz spent nearly four decades at AIPAC, most recently serving as its legislative strategist prior to her retirement last year. She stresses that one of AIPAC’s key strengths is its ability to consistently respond to change. “In the decades I was there, AIPAC responded to changes in a very direct way and that is part of its secret sauce. This is one of those moments,” she says.
“It’s no secret that things are changing relating to partisanship and being pro-Israel. AIPAC took a look and said ‘we can’t do the same old, same old’ and one of the answers was the creation of these PACs,” she says, describing it as a testament to how forward-looking AIPAC has been.
Kurz further says the creation of the PACs is the solution, not a problem, to concerns relating to supposed partisanship. “How many bipartisan PACs are out there? Even those that exist are generally bipartisan in name only,” she says, adding that she has no doubt that the PACs will be “religiously bipartisan” in its approach. “The creation only reinforces the bipartisanship. I don’t understand the argument.”
Who gets the money
Bloomfield, for his part, warns that damages from the move won’t be limited to party leadership, but will trickle down to individual congressional offices as well, imperiling lobbying efforts. Further, he worries that it will weaken access to very conservative and liberal members alike.
“They’re going to note that AIPAC is endorsing candidates that are the exact opposite of everything they stand for. Sure, they may both support Israel, but on everything else they’re a million miles apart.”
Dine says he’s counting on AIPAC’s decision-making to help balance any potential partisanship. “I don’t care if the Republicans have a two-to-one margin in one of the houses or the whole Congress, you cannot be partisan if you’re going to operate on the Hill. It’ll come back to haunt you – if not today, certainly tomorrow, because things are constantly changing,” he warns.
Dine, meanwhile, stresses the PAC formations are primarily related to domestic politics, and can create further political strength only if they are nonpartisan in who they choose to donate money to. “If you have 10 handfuls of money to give away, you better have five Democrats and five Republicans,” he says.
Whether or not it backfires will ultimately depend on the motivations behind the move, Dine believes. “AIPAC has to be AIPAC, not some different political animal,” he says, stressing that it must move slowly at the beginning. “I don’t mind the risk factor – I operated that way for 13 years – but after thinking it out in as many angles and details as possible,” he adds, recommending only endorsing three or four candidates in the 2022 midterm elections.
“It’s a risk calculation; politics is a risky business. AIPAC is taking a risk and I wish them well, but it all depends on their decision-making and how thorough a job of research they do,” Dine sums up.
“It starts with ‘Who gets the money?’ If it goes to antidemocratic people who believe the last election was a fraud and they support the January 6 insurrection – no sir, I would not give them a dime.”