WASHINGTON, DC – For many voters in Illinois, there was nothing overtly suspicious about a 30-second election ad that aired in mid-March.
The video opens with an upbeat musical blast, as a narrator praises parliamentary candidate Bushra Amiwala as a fighter for “real economic justice” and “real deals.”
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
However, the video was not part of a real effort to elect Amiwala to the U.S. House of Representatives. And the candidate quickly denied it.
Instead, public records reviewed by Al Jazeera show that the commercial was paid for by a political action committee (PAC) associated with the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the United States.
The ad was funded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which spends tens of millions of dollars on campaigns to weed out candidates critical of Israel.
With the midterm primary season in full swing, AIPAC is focusing on a number of congressional races, supporters say. They argue that the tactic undermines election transparency.
“Every cycle, AIPAC shows us how broken our democracy is and how corrupt our political finance system is,” said Osama Andrabi, a spokesman for the progressive group Justice Democrats.
“Every cycle, they are at the forefront of exploiting that gap for right-wing donors and at the expense of voters.”
Shell PAC
In Illinois, the ad was aimed at boosting Amiwala to siphon votes away from a more promising progressive candidate, Palestinian-American activist Kat Abu-Ghazaleh, who narrowly lost the race.
The Chicago Progressive Partnership, whose name appeared in Amiwala’s ads, was widely believed to have ties to AIPAC, but it was not required to reveal its funding sources until after the March election.
Now that the voting is over, Federal Election Commission receipts show that the Chicago Progressive Partnership’s only funder was another PAC, Elect Chicago Women (ECW). We contributed $1 million to this partnership.
Meanwhile, ECW has raised more than $4 million from AIPAC’s campaign arm, the United Democracy Project (UDP), and another $1 million from investor Blair Frank, one of UDP’s largest donors.
AIPAC also donated $1.3 million to a third PAC, Affordable Chicago Now, in what critics called an effort to hide spending in Illinois.
Palestinian rights advocates claim this use of “Shell PAC” is evidence of how “toxic” pro-Israel groups have become among American voters. They allege that AIPAC is taking a Russian doll approach by funneling money from one PAC to another to conceal its spending in order to hide its involvement in the primary.
“They have to go into hiding because they are so unpopular within the Democratic Party,” Andrabi told Al Jazeera. “We have to continue to expose them and look under every rock to see if this Shell PAC or that Shell PAC is funded by AIPAC.”
Part of the backlash stems from widespread public disillusionment with pro-Israel policies, including the war against Iran and the AIPAC-backed genocidal attack on Gaza.
As a result, Israel is rapidly losing support among the American public.
Just this week, the New York Times and Siena College released a survey showing that 37 percent of American voters sympathize with Palestinians and 35 percent sympathize with Israelis.
The figure was even higher among Democratic respondents, 57 percent of whom felt greater sympathy for the Palestinians.
Pew Research Center suggested that the backlash from the left was even stronger. In a survey earlier this year, 80% of Democratic respondents said they had an unfavorable view of Israel.
For many voters, AIPAC has come to symbolize the disproportionate influence of campaign finance in American politics, making the group a pariah, especially among Democrats.
Some politicians who previously received support from the group are now disavowing it.
Omar Shakir, executive director of U.S.-based rights group DAWN, said AIPAC’s use of Shell Group reflects that growing disavowal.
He told Al Jazeera that “directing funds through multi-layered PAC structures designed to obfuscate the source of funds” reflects weakness rather than strength.
“They can’t defend Israel’s genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, so they rig the system behind the scenes.”
lack of transparency
A 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allows corporations and advocacy groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections unless they work directly with the campaigns they support.
PACs often don’t have to list all of their donors until after the election. Some nonprofit groups that influence elections (known as dark money groups) don’t have to disclose their donors at all. There are also very few rules regarding messages.
Experts say AIPAC exploited these loopholes to advance its goals. But the lack of transparency is causing confusion among many races.
For example, in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, candidate Ara Stanford claimed that she had not received any funds from AIPAC.
But the biggest spender in the race was the 314 Action Fund, a PAC supporting Democratic scientists who backed pediatric surgeon Stanford University.
AIPAC transferred $1 million to the 314 Action Fund in the last election cycle in 2024, but it remains unclear how involved the group was in Pennsylvania elections.
Progressive state Rep. Chris Love, who has denounced Israeli atrocities in Gaza as genocide, ultimately won Tuesday’s primary.
Meanwhile, in Kentucky, AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups helped defeat Rep. Thomas Massie, a rare Republican critic of President Donald Trump.
It was the most expensive House primary in U.S. history, but the names of the PAC donors who spent the most money in the race have not been fully disclosed.
While it may be difficult to prove AIPAC spending in some elections, Andrabi said it is not enough for candidates to simply distance themselves from pro-Israel groups.
“We know that AIPAC won’t spend money on candidates unless they rubber-stamp their agenda in Washington,” he said.
“So the question is not just what they say and whether they deny AIPAC support. Let’s ask them what policies they support in Congress. Will they support an arms embargo against Israel? Will they call genocide genocide? Will they cut off all funding to the Israeli government and military? That’s a good litmus test for us.”
AIPAC connections
Beyond its work with the UDP and affiliated PACs, AIPAC has encouraged individual donors to donate to the campaigns of 361 members of Congress, including Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson and Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
The contingency of AIPAC-backed lawmakers spans the ideological spectrum, from prominent liberals like Ted Lieu to far-right anti-Muslims, including Randy Fine.
Former President Barack Obama acknowledged AIPAC’s influence in Washington in his 2020 memoir, saying that politicians were concerned about “transcending” the lobbying group.
“Those who loudly criticize Israeli policies risk being labeled ‘anti-Israel’ (and possibly anti-Semites) and facing a well-funded opponent in the next election,” Obama wrote.
AIPAC did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment by the time of publication.
Despite its well-documented influence, AIPAC’s organizational structure and spending remain opaque.
On Wednesday, rights group DAWN released a report based on LinkedIn disclosures to trace the group’s current and former staff and their professional connections.
It was also discovered that many of the people who worked at AIPAC held jobs in the US and Israeli governments.
“According to DAWN’s analysis, 66 former AIPAC employees currently work for the U.S. government, from Congress to the White House to various branches of the military. Nearly 20 current AIPAC employees previously worked for U.S. government agencies,” the report said.
“The personal and professional relationships that result from this type of revolving door form the backbone of political influence in Washington, as evidenced by the hundreds of professional connections between AIPAC employees and U.S. federal and state officials.”
The group called on AIPAC to release the names of those who lead and work with the group.
“AIPAC should at least publish the pages of its current leaders on its official website,” DAWN said.
“This page should identify AIPAC’s officers, board, senior staff, and department heads, along with photos and biographical information. AIPAC should also publish an organizational chart that shows how the organization is structured, a floor already met by comparable tax-exempt nonprofit organizations.”
Most major advocacy organizations, including DAWN itself, publish the names and backgrounds of their staff and board members, the report said.
Shakir said that because AIPAC has tax-exempt status as a nonprofit organization, taxpayers are “effectively subsidizing” the pro-Israel organization.
“They have a right to know how AIPAC is working to shape U.S. Middle East policy and who is working for it,” he told Al Jazeera.
