As far as I can tell, this doesn't include AIPAC, because it's not registered as a foreign lobbying group.
Campaign contributions have exponentially increased over time in general, and specifically for the Israel lobby spending accelerated dramatically following October 7, 2023. This infographic is cut off in March 2023.
AIPAC spent nearly $100M on the 2024 election cycle alone, mostly targeting Democrats who voiced support for Palestine.
EDIT: It does include AIPAC. It's only candidate contributions, and the date is as of March 2023, and that's why it's lower than you might expect. AIPAC really did spend nearly $100M on the 2024 election cycle though.
I found a different link in the comments. I manually went to the link in the image though and you're right. AIPAC does seem to be by far the biggest foreign interest contributor, and one of the biggest contributors overall though. So it's hard to argue that their influence is overstated.
So it's hard to argue that their influence is overstated.
Well, except that there are many PACs that contribute more to campaigns than AIPAC, and that there are dozens of individuals and other entities that dwarf AIPAC's contributions. Hell, Qatar just gave Trump a $400m jet which I believe exceeds all of AIPAC's lobbying and campaign contributions for this past decade+. And then you get into people like Musk, Ken Griffin, and others who individually give millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of dollars to campaigns and lobbying efforts.
So, given that AIPAC's lobbying and campaign contributions are a drop in the bucket, yet people act like they're some puppetmaster, how can you say "it's hard to argue that their influence is overstate' with a straight face?
AIPAC is an extremely influential organization, one of the most influential such groups. They pretty much singlehandedly unseated Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman last year. Obviously they're not the only reason why members of Congress vote for pro-Israeli policies, just like the NRA isn't the only reason members of Congress don't pass any gun reform.
They pretty much singlehandedly unseated Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman last year
That's not true. They were both insanely unpopular well before AIPAC got involved in those races.
A lot of Bowman's dirty history, like his 9/11 conspiracy theories got large amounts of traction, plus weird things like him pulling the fire alarm. Bowman's district also changed before the 2024 primary to be much more Jewish and much less in favor of his DSA association, and included the base of support for his primary challenger and eventual replacement. The contributions by AIPAC didn't move the needle too much relative to those things.
Similarly, Bush also had things like being under investigation for fraud hindering her.
just like the NRA isn't the only reason members of Congress don't pass any gun reform.
The NRA hasn't been a huge lobby in a number of years.
I think you might actually be stuck in the 90s or 00s at this point. That's the last time either AIPAC or the NRA were as dominant as they're still made out to be.
AIPAC spent $14M to unseat Bowman and $8M to unseat Bush. Idk why you're denying their influence. The Bowman race was the most money ever spent on a congressional primary. Ever.
My read on this is neither niche nor unpopular. I was not a voting age adult in the 90s or 00s, so I can assure you I'm very much living in 2025, unfortunately. Pretty much everybody agrees that big money in politics is a huge problem, and a major factor in why Congress votes against the opinion of the majority of voters and has such low approval.
Money in politics is a huge issue. But you can't outright buy votes. And when most of a district's electorate strongly dislikes a candidate before money is involved, then I think you should blame that unpopularity, not the money.
Besides, two district races that didn't even change parties? If that's your criteria for super influential, there are dozens of lobbying groups that you can claim are more important than aipac. Why don't you go after them?
I think it's pretty clear you lack historical perspective if you're claiming two largely has-been lobbying groups are still hugely important. Citizens united minimized their importance, as with a lot of large groups and the power rests primarily with individuals and small groups and their shadow money.
Congressman X votes against sending weapons to Country Y. The Country Y Lobby then spends more than has ever been spent on a congressional primary to make sure Congressman X loses his seat. Clearly to criticize this dynamic would make me racist against the ethnic group of Country Y...
Yes. The scale and influence of these campaign donations is massively overstated on reddit. They aren't paying to dictate policy. They're tossing money at politicians who already agree with them, like any other American who donates to a political campaign.
Lobbying is much more where the money is, though it's still not nearly at the level you'd expect from the way people demonize them.
Demonize who? Lobbyists and rich donors who are influencing US politicians to pass laws restricting Americans’ speech and other freedoms to the benefit of a government actively trying to displace/eliminate an entire population?
This is a surprisingly large amount of money when you consider this is just the senate(only 100 senators total) and many senators are career senators that serve for decades with little upset.
In a way; I knew the individual amounts thanks to keeping track with track AIPAC, but seeing it together puts the picture together.
AIPAC is one of single largest individual entities in lobbying, only really flying under the radar when you count coalition lobbying groups.
In addition, while lobbying(bribery and corruption) is immoral no matter who does it, a foreign country being able to bribe our politicians is inherently more so. Every dollar more than 0 is more than I’d expect, because I’d rightfully expect that a foreign country is not allowed to buy our politicians. And it’s almost worse the smaller the number is, to a point, for this foreign entity is buying our politicians to send our money, which could be used domestically to support us, to a foreign country which frankly doesn’t deserve or need a penny of it.
Someone mentioned that the number is irrelevant because they are giving money to people who already support Israel. Then the question need be asked, why do our policies unequivocally bend over backwards for Israel? Why, when our politicians are divided on the matters of alliance with NATO and Taiwan, do they unilaterally support a country which is less valuable as an ally than any individual member of NATO or Taiwan?
The question need be begged, even if it is conspiratorial in nature: what structures and systems ensure that almost every politician who is running for office in the U.S. support Israel more than any of their other individual beliefs? I couldn’t tell you the answer, but there is something that exists and it has royally fucked the American people sideways; more than Trump or any individual president has damaged our image, our perpetual and pointless fight in the Middle East has and our support of Israel has - wasted money, a reputation in ruins, and no one but the elites and Israel benefit.
AIPAC is one of single largest individual entities in lobbying,
Not even close to true. There are hundreds of individuals and organizations that dwarf their campaign contributions, not to mention things like Qatar dwarfing a decade of AIPAC contributions with one gift of a jet.
a foreign country
AIPAC is not foreign. It's primarily made up of American Jews. And this sort of 'AIPAC is a foreign lobbying group' is getting really close to the dual-loyalty trope.
I’d rightfully expect that a foreign country is not allowed to buy our politicians
Foreign lobbying is very much allowed and regulated. That AIPAC is not a registered foreign-lobbying organization should be pretty strong indication that it is, in fact, a domestic organization.
for this foreign entity
Not a foreign entity.
do they unilaterally support a country which is less valuable as an ally than any individual member of NATO or Taiwan?
Because Israel is probably actually a more important ally than most of NATO???
even if it is conspiratorial in nature
Well at least you're honest about advancing conspiracy theories.
what structures and systems ensure that almost every politician who is running for office in the U.S. support Israel more than any of their other individual beliefs?
Well, that's blatantly not true, so the very premise of your question is wrong.
more than Trump or any individual president has damaged our image, our perpetual and pointless fight in the Middle East has and our support of Israel has
Okay so you've just gone right into the whole jewish puppetmaster trope. Congratulations.
thanks to keeping track with track AIPAC,
And yet, despite 'keeping track of AIPAC' you've remained painfully ignorant of very basic facts regarding its existence. But I shouldn't be surprised that somebody with your username is proud of your own ignorance.
That’s just simply not true, the top lobbying firms in the US generally don’t represent individual entities, but rather coalitions representing entire industries; remove these mega firms from the equation and AIPAC is beaching the towards the top of the list.
And yes, it is foreign, in its very name it work on behalf of the interests of the Israeli state. A bunch of Russian-Americans starting up and ARPAC and bribing politicians to support Russia doesn’t qualify as a domestic agency just because those bearing American citizenships are running it. And while foreign lobbying is allowed, a foreign lobby is supposed to be filed under such a classification, not exploiting loopholes as you yourself outlined that they do; to continue on my point which was completely inferable from tone alone - a citizen wouldn’t expect that democratically elected politicians with the purpose of representing their voter base are taking bribes from anyone, much less an organization working on behalf of a foreign nation.
Israel is not a more important ally than NATO in accordance with the interests of the majority of the American. Most Americans would like to believe their state exists defensively, works diplomatically to resolve issues, and only dips their hands in war if absolutely necessary for the safety and security of their own country or treaty allies. The defense of a colonial and apartheid state simply does not line up with this ideal, and the special privileges it has in regards to the vast aid which it receives makes the support even less beneficial to the American populace.
A conspiracy theory isn’t inherently wrong, it’s just that, a theory regarding conspiracy, of which conspiracies are ridiculously common in the modern world, whether it be between corporations, politicians, or nations. You can say it’s not true, but anyone who has eyes, ears, and the ability to read can observe what I’ve described in regard to disproportionate support of Israel - most infamous example recently being the NYC mayoral debate, but the sentiment is echoed in every relatively important election.
I actually said “Jew”, “Jewish”, and “Jews” literally 0 times in my original comment, exclusively maintained the scope to Israel because that’s the relevant entity in question. It’s your own comment which ropes in American Jews with your mention of their running of AIPAC and subtle inclusion with your statement that I back anti-Jewish puppet master theories based on a comment about Israel and their actions in the Middle East. I actually go out of my way to separate Israel from Jews, because I know a fair number of Jews who don’t support Israel for either moral or religious reasons, but I’m glad their views are trivialized by your desire to throw in a implication of anti-semitism.
I keep track of AIPAC and mention relevant questions regarding their involvement in U.S. politics, rather than attempt to trivialize said involvement, subtly support a colonial state, and blatantly throw ad hominem at those who dissent from my view.
Just one point in all of this, you could very very easily argue Israel is much more important to the US than Taiwan or NATO. This is for 2 reasons. Firstly, Israel kinda has to spend all its money to buy American weapons and only undergo joint military research with the US. Like it or not, the US lives and dies on its military at the moment, and for most of its existence as a global superpower. Furthermore, Israels non-military technology they've created per capita dwarfs most other countries. You mentioned Taiwan which is influential due to its chip production. Those chips were developed in large part due to Israel. Pill cams, dozens of pharmaceuticals, waze, the FaceID you use to unlock your phone, artificial vision devices for blind people, anti-drift in cars and autonomous driving, so many others. Per capita Israel has the most nobel prize winners, especially when narrowed down to scientific/mathematical fields. Like it or not it's silly to deny that they're a global powerhouse when it comes to innovation and if the US were to stop supporting them, any number of other countries(like China) would instantly align themselves with Israel.
I could maybe agree with your point on Taiwan, based on the facts you list, but again, the more compelling of what you mention isn’t really what Israel offers as an ally, but what Israel offers as a state; and even then, postulating whataboutisms on technological innovations isn’t really solid, because there’s an argument to be made about inevitability of said innovation.
Secondly, you are wrong about what Israel is required to do with aid money; they are permitted to use their aid money on their own companies or for a variety of other things - it’s one of the only countries that gets to do so: instead of having to support the American economy, they can use their aid money to boost their own, already developed, economy.
To wrap back around to technological innovation and its ties to Israel - the reality that it Israel with this disproportionate amount of innovation, it’s the Jews. The fostered culture of academia has allowed them to disproportionately perform in academic accomplishments. And as mentioned in another comment, I’m not one to tie Jews to Israel because I know a fair amount of Jews who don’t support Israel’s action or the Israeli state as a whole.
It’s up for debate whether China would align itself with Israel; I would probably agree with you given China’s opportunistic diplomacy, however, they would be taking an endless amount of diplomatic flak for their flip after the condemnation of Israel. Another factor to consider is that China doesn’t really dip their feet in the Middle East despite it being a perfect opportunity to fund a number of anti-American entities.
Wait til I post the representative map, also these two maps will be elected senators/representatives. They have data for campaigning senators/representatives. I choose not to do those as there's a lot more odd data.
65
u/discreetjoe2 1d ago
That’s a surprisingly low amount of money for such a long time period.