Progressives have grown increasingly angry at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) following the defeat of Squad member Rep. Cori Bush (D-Missouri) in the primary earlier this week.
Bush lost to fellow Democrat Wesley Bell in a primary that AIPAC aggressively funded to stop him. Just weeks earlier, the group had spent $15 million in a primary to defeat Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York. Combined, AIPAC had spent nearly $24 million to take out two of the left’s most prominent black politicians.
“She was a fighter for ordinary people,” said one progressive activist who supported Bush and Bowman’s reelection efforts.
“Right now, the only Democratic candidate in this district is one who has proven his loyalty to the interests of big money people who don’t care about the hungry babies of St. Louis,” the progressive said.
AIPAC celebrated Bush’s loss to Bell, the prosecutor from St. Louis, as an important step in protecting the U.S.-Israel alliance.
“The only criterion for whether we support or oppose a candidate is their position on the U.S.-Israel relationship,” AIPAC spokesman Marshall Whitman told The Hill after Bush’s defeat.
Whitman cited Bell and George Latimer, who ousted Bowman from the Bronx-Westchester County district, as important newcomers who continue to carry the torch of progressivism in a non-divisive way.
“Mainstream pro-Israel voters sent a strong message that the United States supports Israel in its fight against Iran’s terrorist proxies,” he said. “Voters across the country are rejecting anti-Israel voices and supporting candidates who understand the vital importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship.”
That view is sharply opposed by progressives who support keeping Bush and Bowman in their seats. Critics of AIPAC’s spending say the group has grown in presence and a track record of defeating opponents.
While many on the progressive left are united in their outrage at the group’s influence, there is no clear consensus yet on how to counter it.
Progressives in Congress and activists working to maintain the coalition say changing campaign finance structures is the most important step to curbing the power of outside funding groups like AIPAC.
“If there’s one strategy that needs to be focused on in the wake of the Bowman and Bush elections, it’s campaign finance reform,” said Hassan Martini, who runs No Dem Left Behind, a progressive group that recruits and trains new left-leaning candidates.
Martini, who, like many Democratic strategists, has been critical of the seemingly limitless influx of money, said such reform should be of concern to both parties and factions within both parties.
He said pushing for reforms would “strengthen our democracy by attracting more small donors, increasing financial transparency and lowering barriers for ordinary candidates.”
Progressives have been pushing to reshape the system that runs elections since Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) ran against Hillary Clinton in 2016, but have made little progress. Sanders used that model to run two successful presidential campaigns, and other candidates have replicated it with varying degrees of success, depending on their districts, the strength of their rivals and their personal shortcomings.
“AIPAC had to spend $8.5 million to get 51% of the vote to defeat Cori Bush,” Sanders said in a post on social platform X. “Billionaires buying elections is not the way this country should be. We must end Citizens United and Super PACs and move to public funding of elections.”
Some on the left speculate that things will get worse before they get better, meaning candidate casualties could mount as the country prepares for a presidential election and a transition of power in Congress.
“I haven’t heard of any real strategy to counter AIPAC money that’s swinging elections, and I honestly haven’t seen a cohesive or meaningful strategy from the left in quite some time,” said Tim Black, a popular YouTube host and progressive-leaning independent media figure.
Other progressives predicted even less trust in the left’s approach to AIPAC.
“I think the Democratic candidate would rather lose the election than defy Israel,” said one left-leaning speaker who is in contact with prominent leaders of the movement. “I’d be happy to be wrong on that.”
“In the short term, it will be very frustrating for voters who want decency and morality on this issue,” the source said, calling it a “runaway freight train.”
“Both the left and the right are getting angrier and angrier by the day about our policies toward Israel,” the source said. “No matter who’s president, if this conflict continues, there will be massive riots next year. And if Israel starts this big war in the Middle East and we support it, you will see the biggest protests this country has ever seen.”
Bush himself expressed growing anger toward AIPAC shortly after his primary defeat.
“AIPAC, I’m coming to destroy your kingdom,” Bush said Tuesday night, drawing backlash from moderate Democrats.
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was among those to condemn the remarks.
“Comments like this are inflammatory, divisive and completely unhelpful,” she told reporters. “We will continue to condemn this type of approach, any political rhetoric of that nature.”
President Biden and the party’s new nominee, Vice President Harris, did not participate in the primary, a disappointment for progressives who argued that may have contributed to Bush’s victory.
Both Bush and Bowman lost their cases over what some saw as careless mistakes and bad publicity, including a federal investigation into Bush’s use of security guards and Bowman’s improper setting off of fire alarms at the Capitol.
In addition to being seen as opposing Biden, Bush voted against an infrastructure bill and both called for a ceasefire during the Israeli-Hamas war.
Progressives say that while these political missteps could have been overcome individually, taken together they make an easy target, and their intransigence towards AIPAC, the United Democracy Project and other pro-Israel groups that they see as counter to their causes has been exacerbated by a lack of support from the administration.
“I think a lot of so-called progressives will quickly realize that he’s doing a much less good job of addressing the issues than Bush and Bowman,” Black said.
“They seem much more intent on maintaining this pathetic identity politics to avoid being labeled a racist, misogynist or Trump supporter,” he said.
