AIPAC

Based on Wikipedia: AIPAC

In 1982, a congressman from Illinois learned what it meant to cross one of Washington's most formidable political machines. Paul Findley had served in the House of Representatives for over two decades. He was a Republican in good standing. But he had done something that would cost him his career: he had shown enthusiasm for Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Activists connected to a lobbying group called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee—AIPAC—backed his opponent. Findley lost his seat.

Two years later, Senator Charles Percy, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suffered the same fate. His sin? Supporting a deal to sell military planes to Saudi Arabia. An AIPAC board member personally recruited his Democratic challenger. Percy was unseated.

These two victories in the early 1980s transformed AIPAC's reputation in Washington. Political candidates learned that this was an organization "not to be trifled with." For the next three decades, Congress would be, in the words of observers, "staunchly pro-Israel."

The Birth of a Lobbying Giant

AIPAC's origins trace back to a massacre.

In October 1953, Israeli troops under the command of Ariel Sharon attacked the Palestinian village of Qibya. At least sixty-nine villagers were killed. Two-thirds of them were women and children. The international reaction was swift and damning. Something had to be done to manage Israel's image in America.

Isaiah Kenen saw an opportunity. Kenen was an American journalist who had become a lobbyist for the Israeli government, working at times for Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He had been serving as the information director for the American Zionist Emergency Council, an organization that coordinated American Jewish support for Israel. But that group had a problem: the Eisenhower administration suspected it was being funded directly by the Israeli government. The State Department was asking uncomfortable questions about whether Kenen should register as a "foreign agent."

Kenen's solution was elegant. In 1954, he created a new organization—the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs—that would be legally separate from the Zionist Council, with separate finances. This new entity could lobby for policies favorable to Israel without triggering foreign agent registration requirements.

In 1959, the organization was renamed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, reflecting its broader ambitions. AIPAC was born.

How AIPAC Works

AIPAC is not technically a political action committee. For decades, it didn't directly raise money for candidates at all. Instead, it operated through a more sophisticated system.

Here's how it worked: AIPAC members would raise money for candidates through dozens of political action committees that had no formal connection to AIPAC itself. By the late 1980s, there were at least fifty-one pro-Israel PACs operated by AIPAC officials, according to the Wall Street Journal. These committees had innocuous names like the Florida Congressional Committee, NORPAC, and the Maryland Association for Concerned Citizens. They operated independently but their missions and membership aligned perfectly with AIPAC's goals.

Campaign contributions were "bundled"—collected from many individual donors and delivered together—and distributed strategically to candidates who could help the cause. According to Thomas Dine, who led AIPAC during its peak years of influence, contributions from AIPAC members often constituted ten to fifteen percent of a typical congressional campaign budget.

That's an extraordinary figure. Imagine running for Congress and knowing that a single interest group's network provides one dollar out of every seven or eight you spend on your campaign. Now imagine what happens if that money goes to your opponent instead.

As former Representative Brian Baird of Washington state explained it: "Any member of Congress knows that AIPAC is associated indirectly with significant amounts of campaign spending if you're with them, and significant amounts against you if you're not with them." In his own campaigns, AIPAC-connected money amounted to about two hundred thousand dollars. But the real calculation was what he called "a four-hundred-thousand-dollar swing"—the difference between having that money on your side versus having it spent against you.

The Key Contact System

Money was just one tool. AIPAC developed what insiders call the "key contact" system, which one journalist described as the organization's "secret."

The premise is simple but powerful: for every senator, AIPAC can call on five to fifteen "key contacts"—influential constituents who share interests with that particular lawmaker. Need to reach a senator who cares about agriculture? AIPAC finds a Jewish farmer in his state. A senator passionate about education? There's a Jewish school administrator ready to make the call. Even senators described as "standoffish" had their key contacts mapped out.

American Jews make up less than three percent of the U.S. population and are concentrated in just nine states. This would seem like a political disadvantage. AIPAC turned it into a strength by creating "caucuses" in every single congressional district. Staff organizers worked with each district's Jewish community, regardless of how small.

The organization also invested in the future. On college campuses, AIPAC provided "political leadership training" to undergraduate student groups, cultivating relationships with student body presidents and other young leaders who might one day hold power.

The Trip to Israel

One of AIPAC's most effective tools costs the organization almost nothing in lobbying dollars because it's technically educational.

Through its charitable arm, the American Israel Education Foundation, AIPAC sponsors all-expenses-paid trips to Israel for members of Congress and other opinion-makers. In 2005 alone, more than one hundred members of Congress visited Israel this way, some making multiple trips. These carefully curated journeys shape how American lawmakers understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by controlling what they see, whom they meet, and how the narrative is framed.

The trips are legal because they're classified as educational rather than lobbying. But the line between education and persuasion is often blurry.

The Rise to Power

AIPAC existed for two decades before becoming truly powerful. The transformation began after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel during the Jewish holy day.

By the mid-1970s, AIPAC had accumulated enough financial and political clout to sway congressional opinion, according to Michael Oren, a former Israeli diplomat to the United States. The organization's budget tells the story: it grew from three hundred thousand dollars in 1973 to over seven million dollars by the late 1980s—a more than twenty-fold increase.

The character of the organization changed too. Under founder Isaiah Kenen, AIPAC had roots in the Zionist movement, staffed by longtime activists from the Jewish community. Kenen was described as "an old-fashioned liberal" who didn't seek to win support by donating to campaigns or influencing elections. He was willing to "play with the hand that is dealt to us."

By the 1980s, AIPAC had evolved into something different: a prototypical Washington lobbying and consulting firm. Leaders and staffers were now recruited from legislative staff and lobbyists with direct experience navigating the federal bureaucracy. The board of directors became dominated by four successful businessmen—Mayer "Bubba" Mitchell, Edward Levy, Robert Asher, and Larry Weinberg.

In 1980, Thomas Dine took over as executive director and developed AIPAC's grassroots operation into a national network capable of reaching every member of Congress.

The Espionage Scandal

In 2005, AIPAC faced its most serious crisis.

Lawrence Franklin, a Pentagon analyst, pleaded guilty to espionage charges. He had been passing U.S. government secrets to Steve Rosen, AIPAC's policy director, and Keith Weissman, the organization's senior Iran analyst. The case became known as the AIPAC espionage scandal.

AIPAC fired both Rosen and Weissman. In 2009, charges against the two former employees were dropped—but not before the scandal had raised uncomfortable questions about where AIPAC's loyalties truly lay.

This wasn't the first time such questions had been raised. From its very founding, AIPAC had existed in part to solve the problem that its predecessor organization faced: how to advocate for Israeli interests without being classified as an agent of a foreign government.

Bipartisan or Right-Wing?

AIPAC describes itself as bipartisan, and there's evidence to support this claim. At its 2016 policy conference, both major party nominees—Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump—spoke to the gathering. The organization maintains relationships with politicians across the spectrum.

But critics argue that AIPAC's bipartisanship masks a consistent rightward tilt. The organization has been accused of being strongly allied with Israel's Likud party—the right-wing political bloc that has dominated Israeli politics for much of the past several decades—and with the U.S. Republican Party. An AIPAC spokesman called this characterization "malicious."

The tension became visible in 2010, when AIPAC opposed the reelection of Representative Jan Schakowsky, a Jewish Democrat from Illinois. Schakowsky had maintained good relations with AIPAC and had received campaign contributions from its members. But she had also been endorsed by J Street, a newer pro-Israel lobbying group that positions itself as a liberal alternative to AIPAC. That endorsement was apparently enough to turn AIPAC against her.

J Street was founded in 2008 by Americans who supported Israel but disagreed with AIPAC's approach. Where AIPAC has generally backed Israeli government positions regardless of which party held power in Jerusalem, J Street has been more willing to criticize Israeli policies, particularly regarding settlements in the occupied territories. J Street has attracted support from Democrats who feel AIPAC no longer represents their values.

The Omar Controversy

In February 2019, AIPAC found itself at the center of a national controversy when freshman Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, one of the first two Muslim women to serve in Congress, tweeted that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's support for Israel was "all about the Benjamins"—slang for hundred-dollar bills, meaning it was about money.

When asked who was paying these politicians, Omar clarified: she meant AIPAC.

The reaction was explosive. AIPAC supporters expressed outrage, saying Omar was trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish money controlling politics. Omar apologized but also made another statement attacking "political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country."

The episode revived a fraught debate that had simmered for decades: Does AIPAC have too much influence over American policy in the Middle East? And is it possible to criticize that influence without being anti-Semitic?

The Democratic leadership responded by putting forth a House resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Before it passed, the resolution was broadened to condemn bigotry against a wide variety of groups—a compromise that satisfied almost no one completely.

The Super PAC Era

For most of its history, AIPAC maintained the legal fiction that it didn't directly fund political campaigns. That changed in late 2021.

AIPAC announced it was forming its own political action committee and a Super PAC—a type of organization that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on candidates' behalf. The gloves were coming off.

The results were immediate and dramatic. In the 2024 election cycle, AIPAC spent a record forty-five million dollars to defeat just two progressive legislators who had been critical of Israel: Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush. Both lost their primary elections.

This represented a significant escalation. AIPAC was no longer working through networks of affiliated PACs with plausible deniability. It was directly spending massive sums to unseat specific members of Congress who had crossed it.

Cracks in the Coalition

But 2025 brought signs that AIPAC's grip might be loosening.

Multiple Democratic politicians who had previously accepted AIPAC support announced they would no longer take the organization's money. Deborah Ross, Valerie Foushee, Morgan McGarvey, and Seth Moulton all publicly rejected future AIPAC donations.

The Nation magazine reported that "the pro-Israel consensus has evaporated among the Democratic and liberal base. Not only that—being uncritical of Israel and its regime of control over Palestinians today is becoming an impediment to Democratic politicians."

David Frank, a professor of communication at the University of Oregon, went further: "AIPAC is on the ropes. It's being defeated and losing its hold on the American public."

A grassroots movement called Track AIPAC emerged, documenting how much money each member of Congress receives from the organization. The goal, according to its founders, was to "make the money toxic, so that even the recipients of smaller donations will want to return the money."

The Broader Context

AIPAC exists within a larger ecosystem of pro-Israel lobbying in the United States. It is one of several organizations that advocate for Israeli interests, though it has long been considered the most influential.

The organization claims more than five million members as of 2025—a number that, if accurate, would make it one of the largest advocacy organizations in the country. It maintains seventeen regional offices and what it calls "a vast pool of donors."

In 2018, AIPAC spent three and a half million dollars on lobbying, according to OpenSecrets. This is a relatively large sum in the realm of foreign policy—more than ten times what J Street spent—though it's less than many industry lobbying groups. The top fifteen corporate lobbying groups in America all spent over fifteen million dollars that year.

But raw dollar figures don't capture AIPAC's influence. The organization has "a somewhat unique model" that focuses on long-term relationship building. It begins donating early in the careers of politicians with "long-term promise." It commits resources to what analysts call "less formal means of influence-peddling"—luxury flights, accommodations, and trips for members of Congress.

What AIPAC Means for American Democracy

The debate over AIPAC touches on fundamental questions about how American democracy works.

To its supporters, AIPAC represents the best of the American political system: citizens organizing to advocate for policies they believe in, building relationships with elected officials, and participating vigorously in the democratic process. The United States has a long tradition of ethnic and religious groups lobbying on behalf of their ancestral homelands. Irish Americans advocated for Ireland. Polish Americans pushed for Polish independence. AIPAC, in this view, is simply the most effective example of a venerable American tradition.

To its critics, AIPAC represents something more troubling: the capture of American foreign policy by a narrow interest group that prioritizes the preferences of a foreign government over the interests of American citizens. Critics point to the organization's origins as an effort to avoid foreign agent registration, the espionage scandal, and the willingness to spend tens of millions of dollars to defeat members of Congress who dissent from the pro-Israel consensus.

Perhaps the most uncomfortable question AIPAC raises is about the nature of lobbying itself. Is there a meaningful difference between a lobbying group that is "powerful" and one that has a "stranglehold" on Congress? Between "influence" and "undue influence"? Between advocacy and something closer to coercion?

AIPAC's defenders would say the organization plays by the same rules as every other lobbying group in Washington. Its critics would say that's precisely the problem—and that AIPAC simply plays the game better than almost anyone else.

The Iraq War Connection

One episode that rarely gets mentioned in AIPAC's own materials is its role in the lead-up to the Iraq War.

In 2002, AIPAC expressed its intent to lobby Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq. In 2003, after the invasion began, the Iraq War was defended at AIPAC events.

This alignment was not coincidental. Many advocates for the Iraq War argued that removing Saddam Hussein would benefit Israel by eliminating a hostile regime in the region. Critics of the war, including some who were labeled anti-Semitic for saying so, argued that American foreign policy was being shaped by Israeli interests rather than American ones.

The Iraq War turned out to be one of the greatest strategic disasters in American history. More than four thousand American service members died. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed. The war cost trillions of dollars and destabilized the entire Middle East. Whether AIPAC's lobbying played a decisive role in the decision to go to war remains debated, but the organization's support for the invasion is a matter of historical record.

Looking Forward

As of 2025, AIPAC stands at a crossroads.

On one hand, the organization has never been more willing to spend money directly on elections. Its Super PAC can deploy tens of millions of dollars against candidates it opposes. In the short term, this makes AIPAC more dangerous to cross than ever before.

On the other hand, the political landscape is shifting beneath the organization's feet. A new generation of progressive Democrats has emerged who are willing to criticize Israeli policies and reject AIPAC money. The "pro-Israel consensus" that held for decades in both parties is fraying, at least among Democrats.

The question is whether AIPAC can adapt. The organization has reinvented itself before—from a small lobbying outfit trying to avoid foreign agent registration to a grassroots powerhouse that shaped three decades of American foreign policy. Whether it can navigate the current moment of polarization and shifting public opinion remains to be seen.

What seems certain is that the debate over AIPAC's role in American politics is not going away. If anything, it's becoming more intense. And the stakes—for American democracy, for Israeli security, and for the Palestinian people living under Israeli control—could hardly be higher.