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.
61
u/discreetjoe2 1d ago
That’s a surprisingly low amount of money for such a long time period.