AIPACs New High Risk, Low Reward Strategy
When AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) the venerable pro-Israel lobby announced last December a complete change of identity and strategic approach it was personal for me. My professional career as a pro-Israel advocate began decades ago in the Washington offices of AIPAC and I’ve continued to passionately engage as a supporter since the 1980s.
I served as staff for AIPAC’s very first political director, including preparing briefings for heavy-hitter political insiders attending AIPAC’s annual policy conference, helped co-found a national pro-Israel PAC (Political Action Committee) outside of AIPAC, returned to Colorado to direct a local pro-Israel PAC and escorted congressional candidates on tours of Israel. During the year 2000 election cycle, I ran as the Democratic nominee for a seat in the U.S. House representing Colorado’s 6th Congressional District running with endorsements and contributions from pro-Israel PACs around the country. One of my proudest moments as a congressional candidate was being publicly introduced from the floor of AIPAC’s Policy Conference dinner (which filled the Washington Hilton ballroom in those years).
Then U.S. support for Israel, and AIPAC’s role became even more personal when 3 years ago I relocated my home and became a citizen of Israel — Oleh Hadash! Just last year the U.S. co-developed and funded Iron Dome was called into action to intercept over 4,000 rockets fired from Hamas controlled Gaza indiscriminately toward Israel population centers including my Herzliya neighborhood. The effectiveness and efficiency of Iron Dome stopped over 90% of those rockets from landing, the few that got through caused significant trauma and damage which would have been much worse without Iron Dome.
The U.S. House of Representatives responded to Israel’s emergency appropriation request for $1 billion resupply of the defensive system last year, in a bipartisan 420 votes in favor only 9 opposed. As far as congressional action directly impacting U.S. support for Israel, no measure brought to a vote could be more unequivocal or clear, or more welcome to Israeli citizens.
It’s from this perspective I see AIPAC’s new highly public money-focused political strategy not only very risky but leading to a low return over the long run. AIPAC intends to wield influence in the political arena not through the strength of its argument that staunch U.S. support of Israel is in America’s national security and moral interests, but rather through becoming publicly associated with negative electioneering to take out perceived opponents/detractors of the historic relationship.
In the midst of the highly charged post January 6th atmosphere, AIPAC’s endorsements of over 100 Republican election-deniers has publicly associated AIPAC with the insurrection and criminal conspiracy to keep Trump in office just last year. Who will argue this serves the U.S. — Israel relationship?
The December 2021 announcement by AIPAC leadership included both an AIPAC political action committee “PAC” also a “Super PAC” which differ in the amount they can spend on behalf of favored candidates and contribute to their campaign funds directly. In a major reversal from the past, since December 2021 AIPAC has been publicly endorsing, contributing to candidate campaigns and spending multiple millions of dollars to help elect favored candidates or defeat candidates, all before the November 2020 general election campaigns have begun. Reportedly the organization itself allocated over $8.5 million of its funders’ contributions to its PAC and SuperPAC budgets so far this year, cancelling the annual Policy Conference for the foreseeable future.
Thus the phrase I had memorized and repeated hundreds of times in the decades since joining AIPAC became inoperable, “AIPAC neither rates nor endorses members of congress or candidates for federal office”. Recent media coverage has publicly acknowledged AIPAC’s new political money strategy as “the most consequential development in the 2022 Democratic primary cycle”,
In just the first few months of the current election cycle, it’s been reported AIPAC’s United Democracy Project Super PAC raised and spent tens of millions of dollars in support of candidates running in 2022 Congressional campaigns. In most if not all cases AIPAC’s United Democracy Project Super PAC independent expenditure advertising campaigns are completely disconnected with policies relating to the U.S. — Israel relationship, instead are targeted negative campaign advertising meant to discredit and throw a harsh light over unapproved candidates mainly running in Democratic House primaries. In other words, negative campaigning.
To date the 2022 cycle AIPAC Super PAC playbook is mainly filled with negative campaigns without discussion or mention of Israel, the notable exception being a very closely contested Detroit-area Democratic House primary pitting two sitting incumbent members of congress forced by redistricting to run against each other.
The very high profile House Democratic primary AIPAC’s PAC is spending millions to defeat incumbent Jewish Rep. Andy Levin who hails from the pro-Israel legacy of his father and uncle who served for decades before him, AIPAC’s PAC and SuperPAC demonize Levin as someone advocating for a change in U.S. policy (albeit around the margins of its relationship with Israel and Palestinians) labeling him “anti-Israel”. Levin was among the 420 votes in favor of Iron Dome funding just a few months ago.
The cost of congressional campaigns in the twenty years since my year 2000 election cycle campaign has skyrocketed, candidates typically raising and spending millions of dollars sometimes more than $10 million. The maximum a political action committee can give to any single candidate hasn’t changed in more than twenty years, it remains $5,000 per election, $10,000 total including the primary election. Remember these House campaigns are run every two years! The impact of any contribution in any single election cycle is minimal at best, cannot replace a relationship built over years based on timely accurate information making the essential case that a strong U.S. — Israel partnership is in America’s national interest, in other words winning on the merits.
As a first-time congressional candidate twenty years ago, I spent countless hours “dialing for dollars” and making presentations to political action committee directors nationwide, earning recognition as a prodigious fundraiser. More than 41 national political action committees endorsed my candidacy and contributed anywhere from $1,000 — $10,000 to my campaign. Several national political action committees whose interests aligned with my campaign priorities ran 3rd party independent expenditure campaigns on my behalf ranging from labor unions, environmental organizations, pro-choice and pro-gun safety advocates. While I’m proud to have earned their enthusiastic support, in no way did their support sway my values or views.
While the truism that “money is the mother’s milk of politics,” still rings true today, over the long run AIPAC simply cannot spend its way to a supportive Congress, it must win the argument and friends on the strength of the merits, not via intimidation or money-fueled power politics.
Ken Toltz is an Israel-based writer focusing on Israeli documentary filmmakers, previously he was a successful businessman, adjunct professor of marketing and lifelong political advocate. https://kentoltz.medium.com/bio-857f0d5aeb16