#AIPAC influence on democratic primaries

[contemplatingoutlander]

This is just another example of how the Roberts' Supreme Court decimated campaign finance regulation in its Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon et al. v. FEC decisions.

In particular, according to Politico Magazine, in McCutcheon, SCOTUS decided that unless money is given to a candidate's campaign in exchange for favorable policy decisions/laws (i.e., "quid pro quo") it isn't technically a "bribe." Therefore, it isn't sufficiently "corrupt" to be outlawed.

(Although even the SCOTUS "gang of six" must be feeling a little anxious that Trump appears to be running around lately begging billionaires for campaign contributions with promises that he will do their bidding.😳)

An article in Quartz, comparing the U.S. and British election systems, mentions a theory by a political science professor, Justin Fisher, that the difference in how much money is allowed in both systems is largely due to different values,

Fisher says the vast differences in money spent stem from contrasting philosophical approaches: the US favors liberty—the freedom of expression, which includes financial donations—while the UK favors equality. “Most European elections, and the UK is an example of this, are based on the principle of equality, of trying to ensure that the spending does not unduly advantage one side or another,” he explained. [color/ emphasis added]

The Roberts' Court clearly values the "liberty" of the wealthy and corporations to "freely speak" by making large monetary contributions to political campaigns.

Yet, it seems that the Roberts' Court doesn't value the "liberty"/ "free speech" rights of "the little guy" as much.

For instance, if, as the Roberts' Court claims, "money = speech," then wealthy people and corporations produce such a huge amount of "speech" (through their enormous campaign donations) that it drowns out the "voices," and limits the impact of the average American's political "speech."

And given how Trump appears to be "selling" his presidency to those billionaires willing to make huge campaign donations, the Roberts' Court's overvaluation of the "liberty"/ "free speech" rights of the wealthy and corporations results in corruption and the undo influence of the wealthy/ corporations on the laws and policies that the political benefactors of their monetary largesse implement when they are in office.

I think the only way to undo the damage the Roberts' Court has done to our nation will be if we elect a Democratic president and Congress, and are able to expand the Court. Because the "gang of six" isn't going to change their minds about any of this. And as long as they are in a majority, our nation is in peril of becoming a kleptocracy.

“Billionaires buying elections is not what this country is supposed to be about,” said Sanders.

By Sharon Zhang , TRUTHOUT

Published August 9, 2024

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) have spoken out about corruption in politics following the defeat of Rep. Cori Bush (D-Missouri) in her primary this week by pro-Israel groups that poured millions of dollars into unseating the progressive lawmaker.

AIPAC’s super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP), spent $8.5 million on the campaign to oppose Bush, helping to make it the second-most expensive House primary in history — only beaten by Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s (D-New York) primary in June, in which UDP poured $14.5 million into electing a pro-Israel challenger to Bowman.

To many who championed the two lawmakers for speaking out against Israel, the two losses were a show of AIPAC’s outsized influence on elections and the ability for deep-pocketed interest groups to buy elections.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Edward Helmore at The Guardian:

Progressive groups reacted with disappointment and anger over Jamaal Bowman’s decisive primary loss to a moderate Democrat in New York’s 16th district, calling for the party to cut ties with pro-Israel lobbying groups they blame for the result. In a letter to the House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, more than a dozen progressive organizations said they had “dire concerns” over the party’s continued association with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), “the future of the Democratic Party, the future of our multiracial democracy, and the future of our planet”.

Aipac and its affiliates plan to spend $100m across the election cycle, and Bowman’s defeat marks their most significant victory to date. Looking ahead, they have already set their sights set on the Missouri congresswoman Cori Bush, who will face Wesley Bell in her August primary. United Democracy Project, a Super Pac affiliated with Aipac, has already spent nearly $1.9m promoting Bell’s candidacy. The signatories of the letter included the Center for Popular Democracy Action, Jewish Voice for Peace Action, New York Communities for Change and New York City Democratic Socialists of America. In the letter, they said that in the run-up to the vote, UDP had flooded the Westchester county–northern Bronx district with nearly $20m in mailers and ads “funded largely by Republican billionaires, to drown out Jamaal Bowman’s message of humanity, dignity, and a thriving future for all”.

[...] Protect Our Power said in a statement that Bowman’s defeat was a “loss for young people and anyone who cares about our continued movement toward justice, peace, and building a multiracial democracy”. The progressive group blamed “Aipac and the Maga billionaires who recruited and paid for George Latimer’s campaign from start to finish” for the defeat, and vowed “to tell Aipac they have no business creating division in our democracy”. In a separate letter of protest, Jewish Voice for Peace Action said it was “saddened” by the results that had unseated a congressman who “has been one of the few members of Congress committed to defending Palestinian human rights”. “Today is a sad day for American democracy,” said JVP’s political director, Beth Miller. “To protect progressive candidates moving forward it is essential that Democrats reject Aipac,” she added. Bob Herbst, a member of the group and a constituent of NY-16, called Aipac’s multimillion-dollar spend in the district “a dangerous interference in our democracy”.

AIPAC’s influence in American politics is a cancerous rot on America. #RejectAIPAC

[plethoraworldatlas]

Progressive Rep. Jamaal Bowman lost his reelection bid in New York's 16th Congressional District on Tuesday to an establishment-backed county official whose campaign was propelled by nearly $15 million in spending by AIPAC's Republican-funded super PAC.

The United Democracy Project's (UDP) spending made the Democratic primary contest the most expensive House race in U.S. history. According to a Sludgeanalysis of independent election expenditures dating back to 2001, UDP's $14.5 million onslaught to oust Bowman was "more than any other group besides those affiliated with a political party has ever spent on a House election."

The investment paid off, with Westchester County Executive George Latimer leading Bowman by a margin of 58% to 42% with close to 90% of the vote counted in the 16th District, which was redrawn ahead of the 2022 midterms to include more of suburban Westchester County and less of the Bronx.

Bowman, a former Bronx middle school principal who won his House seat in 2020 by defeating AIPAC favorite Eliot Engel, said in his concession speech late Tuesday that "we should be outraged when a super PAC of dark money can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn't true."

"When we say 'Free Palestine,' it is not antisemitic," said Bowman, one of the House's most vocal critics of Israel's assault on Gaza. A majority of Democratic voters in the U.S. believe Israel is committing genocide in the Palestinian enclave, according to a recent survey.

"I would like to make a public apology for sometimes using foul language," he added, referring to remarks he made during a rally over the weekend. "But we should not be well-adjusted to a sick society."

[tieflingkisser]

Dems throw activists under the bus in election postmortems

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before, but a number of pundits are attempting to blame the left for Kamala Harris’s loss. In this narrative, it’s not the highly-paid Democratic consultants or the donor class who helped deliver another four years of Trump. No, the blame should be pinned on activists and progressive groups. One such argument was put forward in a recent New York Times op-ed by Adam Jentleson, “When Will Democrats Learn to Say No?” According to Jentleson one of Harris’s big problems was the fact she backed handful of progressive positions five years ago.

[...]

His conclusion is straightforward: Democrats need to reject calls for progressive reforms and champion “heterodox” politics in order to win the 2026 midterms. In other words, they have to throw vulnerable populations under the bus and abandon any kind of commitment to combatting climate change. There’s a lot missing from Jentleson’s analysis, but let’s start here: the progressive stances endorsed by Democratic candidates during the 2020 primaries did not materialize out of thin air. The first Trump presidency was greeted by immediate protest and vast organizing, which led to some of his most draconian policy plans being blocked. We went on to watch the government botch the public health response to COVID and leave workers hung out to dry. People flooded the streets and demanded change after watching George Floyd get murdered by a police officer on camera. By some metrics, they were the most attended protests in the history of the United States and the actions led to a wider national conversation about race, history, and policing. We also saw millions of young people enthusiastically support the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders, who ran on the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and higher taxes on the rich. The fact that Democrats publicly endorsed some of these positions is a testament to the hard work of activists who helped shift the public discussion through organizing. This is one of the ways that progress has historically worked in the United States. Jentleson’s assertion that this ended up being a big problem because there was Republican backlash could be used to throw water on virtually every social movement ever. That’s how it always works. In his book The Reactionary Mind political scientist Corey Robin writes that conservatism is a meditation on the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back. Jentleson neglects to point out that Harris openly abandoned all the progressive positions she embraced while running to be the 2020 nominee during her 2024 presidential campaign, but maybe that goes without saying. Perhaps it also goes without saying that Harris’s presidential campaign was partially geared to win over Republicans, by touting an endorsement from Dick Cheney, promising a tough border policy, and failing to articulate any kind of robust plan for the working class. Maybe it doesn’t have to be pointed out that Harris vowed to continue weapon sales to Israel, despite continuous left-wing pressure calling on her to change course.

[...]

But let’s leave all that aside and talk about the elephant in the room. How does someone write a piece about groups having too much influence on the Democratic party and not mention pro-Israel lobbying organizations? AIPAC spent over $100 million on the last election cycle and ousted multiple progressives with massive help from GOP donors. I’m going to go out on a limb and say they are a more relevant target when we’re assessing what’s wrong with the Democrats. The real punchline of this Op-Ed is revealed in the author bio section at the end. Jentleson is the former chief of staff to Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, a guy who has spent the past year enthusiastically celebrating the genocide in Gaza. He’s even positioned himself to the right of the Biden administration on the issue, criticizing the White House for briefly threatening to condition military aid. Last week Fetterman attacked The Pope for calling for an investigation into Israel’s genocide.

[thefirsthogokage]

“The truth,” he began. “@AIPAC is a conservative org, raising money from rich Republicans & tries to buy Democratic primaries with it. It distorts campaign finance law in the worst way. Their big money influence is toxic to democracy. Forget what they claim, look at their record. Toxic money.”

Above was posted on twitter on November 24th, 2023.

It wasn’t the first time Pocan put AIPAC on notice. Earlier this month, he made it clear he does not care for, or about, the organization.

“I don’t give a fuck about AIPAC—period,” he told Slate. “I think they’re a cancerous presence on our democracy and politics in general, and if I can be a surgeon, that’s great.”

Nice to see a white person have a spine and use his voice, added awesome for him directly slamming AIPAC.

[odinsblog]

Before I say this, please understand that for me personally, my primary concern with election 2024 was to get rid of Trump and as many Republicans and Libertarians as possible.

That said, there are a host of valid reasons Harris lost: 107 days for a Black woman to run a campaign against Trump was setting her up for failure; racism; sexism; the DNC refusing to let a Palestinian person speak at their convention; foreign governments pouring money into the election (yes, I’m referring to AIPAC); Elon Musk using Twitter to push mis/disinformation; Kamala’s refusal to distance herself from Biden, a deeply unpopular candidate—but iMho, the greatest reason is the influence the Clintons still have over the Democratic Party

Clintonism and their obsession with “triangulating” with Republicans (read, capitulating to, acquiescing to, and forever chasing after conservative voters who won’t everrr vote for a Democrat, let alone a Black Democratic woman) has and will doom the Democratic Party perhaps for generations to come.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi did or said things like this:

Republicans fear their base. Democrats seem to disdain theirs. Republicans energize their base, centrist Democrats try to have it both ways; they try to court conservative Republicans and simultaneously demonize the progressive left.

Democrats have lost the presidency, the House, the Senate and the Judiciary branches of government. That should make them seriously reconsider their positions, but like OP said, it won’t - the only lesson they will learn from this election is that they should have gone further to the right.

I have no clue how Republicans convinced non-white voters that conservative billionaires have their best interests at heart, but I dO know that: 1) centrism and neoliberalism and Clintonism are not the answer, 2) Democrats have failed miserably at being a true opposition party, one that truly and reliably represents the downtrodden.

So, between the two of them, there are about 19 million people from the 2020 election that neither Harris nor Trump were able to mobilize last night. Mostly on Harris's side, who fell about 11 million short of what Joe Biden was able to pull together four years ago. You can call that anything you want, but the one thing you can't call it is insignificant.

To me, the lesson here is obvious. You cannot run a campaign that offers your base nothing but fear of your opponent and expect them to come out for you. You can't just pretend everything is fine the way it is when it's obvious most voters do not feel that way. Chasing after imaginary moderates does not work. This is actually the second time this has happened to Democrats. It's the exact thing that sunk Clinton in '16.

But just like last time, they're not gonna learn a thing from this. People like Carville are going to be running this party's elections for forever, and just like the last two times, primaries are going to continue to be set up in favor of unpopular, right of center party faces who are not capable of campaigning in a Post-Millenium world.

[bllsbailey]

AOC Criticized For Claiming Pro-Israel Lobby Group Caused Democrats To Lose 2024 Elections

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) speaks to reporters as she arrives for a vote series at the U.S. Capitol on September 25, 2024 in Washington, DC.

“Squad” member and far-left Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is now blaming the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for Democrats’ Election Day losses, triggering a firestorm from critics who say she would rather blame Jews than second guess her party’s own policies.

“If people want to talk about members of Congress being overly influenced by a special interest group pushing a wildly unpopular agenda that pushes voters away from Democrats then they should be discussing AIPAC,” the Squad member posted on X.

The chaos was prompted by a comment from Bernie Sanders’ adviser, Jeremy Slevin, who noted that Democrats need to have a reckoning over their ties to corporate and industry lobbies, which he believes have “too much influence” over the Democrat Party. 

However, X users were quick to call out Ocasio-Cortez’s post, maintaining that the bipartisan pro-Israel group is important and that AOC was falling into an anti-Semitic conversation yet again in order to shift blame from Democrat policies. 

“Every former Democrat I know is more concerned about the wildly unpopular agenda of the Teachers’ Union that closed our schools, masked our kids, lowers rigor, standards and accountability while teaching an ahistorical, hateful version of America, but go on with your Jew hating,” posted NYC education council member Maud Maron.

Meanwhile, other users pointed out the irony in the squad member’s critique of AIPAC, which typically helps Democrat candidates’ popularity grow.

“AIPAC has raised more money for Democrats than AOC has,” responded Ethan Fine. “She has a weird obsession with Jews… always talking about AIPAC and Jews controlling Congress.” “Why hasn’t she called out other advocacy groups? Why is she obsessed with Jews?” he added. “Most of the candidates supported by AIPAC are Democrats,” Jewish writer Joel Petlin commented. “But AOC doesn’t want you to know that important fact because it would obscure her Anti-Semitic theory.”

AOC’s assertion that U.S. support for Israel is declining is untrue, according to recent polls.

A Harvard-Harris poll from October found that a staggering 81% of Americans support Israel over Hamas. Among Democrats, 76% say that they back Israel as well.

AIPAC lists their priorities as strengthening U.S.-Israeli relations, combatting terrorism, promoting peace, opposing anti-Israel discrimination, and countering Iran’s nuclear aggression.

Soon after, the group responded quickly to AOC on X on Sunday night, countering the Democrat with a “fact check” on what Democrat voters believe is popular, attaching the winning results of AIPAC-backed candidates in Democrat primaries.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

[abs78895]

The Dark Side of AIPAC's American Israel Education Foundation and Political Action Committee

AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, wields considerable influence in U.S. politics, primarily through its American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF) and Political Action Committee (PAC). While these entities are presented as educational and advocacy tools, critics argue that their operations reveal a darker side of political influence and manipulation.

The AIEF funds trips for U.S. lawmakers to Israel, ostensibly to educate them about the region and its complexities. However, these trips are often criticized for providing a one-sided perspective that aligns closely with Israeli government positions. Lawmakers are given a carefully curated experience that emphasizes Israel's security concerns while downplaying the plight of Palestinians. This "education" serves to create a pro-Israel bias among U.S. politicians, which critics argue is the primary intent of these trips.

AIPAC's PAC is another powerful tool, channeling substantial financial contributions to political campaigns. This financial influence is seen as a form of political coercion, ensuring that elected officials remain supportive of Israel's policies. The PAC's contributions are strategically targeted, supporting candidates who align with AIPAC's agenda and opposing those who do not. This has led to accusations of undermining democratic processes by prioritizing special interests over the will of the electorate.

The opacity surrounding AIPAC's operations adds to the controversy. The organization's financial dealings and lobbying efforts are often shrouded in secrecy, leading to suspicions of underhanded tactics and undue influence. Critics argue that this lack of transparency allows AIPAC to operate with impunity, exerting a disproportionate influence on U.S. foreign policy.

In conclusion, the AIEF and PAC represent the darker aspects of AIPAC's influence. Through strategic education initiatives and financial contributions, these entities shape U.S. politics in ways that critics argue undermine democratic principles and perpetuate a biased approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[readingsquotes]

NY-16 (Westchester County and Co-Op City, Bronx)

Jamaal Bowman (i) vs. George Latimer

Paradoxically, we sometimes find ourselves with little to say about the biggest elections in these previews. There are state assembly elections in this preview with tons of details we wanted to share, but NY-16? You already know.

Jamaal Bowman defeated long-in-the-tooth incumbent Eliot Engel in an absolutely triumphant 2020 primary election. However, New York lost a congressional district almost immediately after, and the domino effect was that Bowman had to be drawn a much whiter district that was nearly all Westchester County and almost no Bronx. (The previous district had been about ⅔ in Westchester and ⅓ in the Bronx.) A Black leftist was never going to have an easy time in those wealthy, whiter new towns, and Bowman indeed did quite poorly with his new voters in 2022, taking only 55% of the vote against a pair of badly underfunded challengers. So AIPAC set their sights on him.

There’s no need to rehash the details: AIPAC recruited moderate County Executive George Latimer, who used his influence to keep NY-16 as white as possible in the 2024 redistricting, and after he got his wish, AIPAC began to dump millions upon millions into the district. They spent over $14 million on independent expenditures alone, an amount that might as well be $140 million or $140 billion—in a congressional primary race, it all becomes something approaching infinity at that point. (Some other PACs, including Democratic Majority for Israel and the cryptocurrency industry front Fairshake, threw down a couple million more.) Bowman and his allies on the left, like Justice Democrats and the Working Families Party had nowhere near that amount of money, and, even after a fundraising like hell for months, could only put together about $4 million to back him up. Polling has been ugly for Bowman, with the only independent poll of the race coming from Emerson in early June, and putting Latimer’s lead at 48% to 31%. Latimer has spent the closing stretch of the race making racist statement after racist statement, but they hardly seem to matter to the white voters of Westchester County, which is why Latimer fought so hard to keep them in the district, to give himself an “ethnic benefit”, as he puts it.

Progressives and the left, including NYC-DSA, who voted to re-endorse Bowman after pulling their support in 2022 over Israel-Palestine issues, are fighting like hell to pull off a miracle here, but are universally braced for a loss, and a painful one. AIPAC is funneling ludicrous amounts of Republican money to elevate a white grievance candidate in the suburbs of diverse, progressive city, and it all appears to be working. Bleak. The early voting numbers are even bleaker: Scarsdale, Mamaroneck, and Rye, all white majority towns that hate Bowman based on their previous voting patterns, have cast more early votes than majority-Black Mt. Vernon, despite Mt. Vernon being somewhere from two to five times their size. Bowman has to hope for an improbable surge of election day voters, something on par with the kind of turnout you would see in a contested presidential primary, or even greater. Again, bleak. We promise the legislative races have more reasons for optimism.

[canichangemyblogname]

Other things to watch for:

Conflating the critique and sanction of weapons manufacturers with “antisemitism.” Are the bombs Jewish? Or are you suggesting the Jews control global and/or US weapons manufacturing and armament sales?

Calling AIPAC “Israeli” or “Jewish.” AIPAC is made up exclusively by US Citizens and only US Citizens can give them money. Literally any US citizen can become a member; this is NOT and NEVER was an organization of Israeli nationals. It was also NEVER a faith-based organization. The majority of their members are non-Jews and they primarily get their money from American right-wing super donors. Their members include sports-team owners, congress members, the co-founder of Zumba, the creator of squishmallows, the former CEO of Victoria’s Secret, and others who have a stake in US imperial interests. Their board is notably, predominantly not Jewish, similar to the make up of their members and donors. They also have a history of using their money and influence to oust Jewish people from positions of influence, especially if they’re progressive. They are also not THEE only lobby on Capitol Hill or THEE most powerful, but that does not mean they don’t have considerable influence in Democratic Party primaries.

Anything that labels charitable organizations, non-profits, and international assemblies as part of some conspiratorial “Hamasnik” world-order, bonus-points if they’re also characterized hell-bent on “destroying western values” << this should all set off so many red flags.

Remember two months ago when news came out that Israel’s military sicced a dog on a disabled man and the internet jumped to ride Israel’s dick, saying, “Dogs can’t be Jewish, stupid Arabs” because the locals who first reported it described the dog as a “Zionist attack dog”? Yeah? There were not enough non-Palestinians and non-Jews calling out the fallacious conflation of Jewish and Zionist by the pro-Israel crowd. In fact, there’s never enough call-out of this practice. Most of the people I saw say, “Hey, this is a really weird characterization and critique of the language an occupied people use to communicate the violence of an occupational power,” were themselves Palestinian.

This fallacious conflation would be like if I said “These colonialist and illegitimate United States forces sicced a police attack dog on an autistic black man, #ACAB,” and someone replied, “Dogs can’t be Anglo-Saxon Evangelicals, stupid liberal.” Huh??? You see how this makes zero sense? You see how this is a fallacy?

[plethoraworldatlas]

As the leading U.S. pro-Israel lobby's political action committee unleashes a nearly $2 million ad blitz targeting Congressman Jamaal Bowman, Jewish allies of the New York Democrat—who is an outspoken critic of what he and many experts call Israel's genocide in Gaza—on Thursday joined progressive lawmakers in condemning right-wing efforts to defeat pro-Palestine incumbents.

United Democracy Project (UDP), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) super PAC, has booked $1.9 million in television ads to influence the outcome of the Democratic primary in New York's 16th Congressional District, according to Wednesday reporting by Sludge's David Moore.

"This new ad spending in New York shows once and for all that my opponent, George Latimer, is bankrolled by a right-wing super PAC that has received over $40 million from Republican megadonors who want to defend Republican insurrectionists, overturn voting rights, and ban abortion nationwide," Bowman said in a statement.

"Democrats across New York deserve better, and will reject these attempts to buy our elections and undermine our democracy," he added.

Jews for Jamaal, a pro-Bowman coalition spearheaded by the group Jews for Racial & Economic Justice Action, said in a statement that "we recognize this media blitz for what it is: a desperate move by powerful interests to silence the district's first Black representative in history."

"UDP is overwhelmingly spending its millions in Democratic primaries, mostly against Black and brown Democratic incumbents who speak out against war and for the human rights of Palestinians," the coalition continued. "This massive amount of spending distorts the political landscape, drowning out the needs and voices of everyday constituents with the interests of a few wealthy donors."

"It undermines the very foundation of our democracy, which must be built on the principles of transparency, accountability, and genuine representation," Jews for Jamaal added.

[itsmassivecollectionpatrolus]

The Main Source of Foreign Interference

The unrelenting preoccupation of the Democratic Party with “Russian disinformation” continued into the election season of 2020. For instance, Adam Schiff, the Head of the House of Representatives’ Homeland Security Committee, misled the public by fraudulently claiming Hunter Biden’s Laptop from Hell had been created and planted by Russian agents.

The perspectives of both Schiff and Sidney Powell fail to acknowledge the obvious fact that the main source of foreign interference in US domestic politics, including in elections, comes from the government of Israel as well as from some influential American Jews whose primary political attachment is to their perception of Israel’s best interests.

The main agencies for the exercise of Israeli and Jewish influence on US politics, including on US elections, are abundant, well funded, well organized and many-faceted. The clout of this complex of agencies plus the people that staff and support them have been examined by Walt and Mearshimer in their much discussed book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Walt and Mearshimer devote much attention to explaining the deep and wide political influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC. They also devote considerable attention to the ADL.

Like AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith is core agency among the numerous and many-faceted organizations that together constitute the Israel Lobby. The ADL’s activities extend to close integration with law enforcement agencies at all levels, with media, and with the key movers and shakers of Silicon Valley.

In the course of 2020, Silicon Valley with its ADL bastion of Jewish power has been an important platform of operations for those intent on seizing control of the content of the Internet and especially of its main search engine, Google.

This preoccupation with controlling Internet content is a fundamental aspect of the effort to overcome and destroy the protections of the First Amendment in the US Constitution. The ADL’s participation in the tightly-coordinated attack on constitutional protections of free speech in this presidential contest can be conceived as component of Israeli interference in a US election.

The foreign influence of Israel on US politics including on elections goes far beyond the role of any other national or corporate lobby in the United States. The influence of, for instance, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, Canada, or the UK on this US election does not come close to that of Israel. For decades the US political process has been constructed so that every US presidential election is a contest between Republican and Democratic Party advocates of close and friendly integration between the US and Israeli governments.

The lack of any genuine rivalry between Trump and Biden when it comes to the need for vigorous debate on US-Israel relations is par for the course. The foreign interference of Israel in US elections has been institutionalized to the point where it is made to seem normal. An aspect of the foreign interference puts certain important topics off limits as media cartels devote their resources to propagating Zionist propaganda rather than building up constitutionally-protected free speech including on sensitive subjects.

Both political parties share the bi-partisan principle that all candidates for top office must be vetted to disqualify any contenders whose platforms include significant criticisms of Israel. Generally speaking, any significant commitment to the principle of justice for the dispossessed and persecuted Palestinians is treated as the basis for disqualification from the even the possibility of achieving high office. The strength of this taboo against any honest discussion of Israel-Palestinian relation in presidential politics amounts to foreign interference in US elections on steroids.

Tony Hall

[treybien]

I love that you called my post bad faith, but didn't actually respond to the part where I specifically addressed your point. Also, I didn't call you condescending, I said it was a condescending take. I don't know you.

Okay, here are your words: "It's about people who have, pretty explicitly, stated that they're not going to vote because they think the Democratic Party will "wake up" or change because of it."

And here are mine: "For those reading, absenteeism is absolutely a valid expression of an educated voter. Democracies are judged in large part by their turnout."

Democrats, just like Republicans, are primarily interested in maintaining power. If you (not necessarily you, OP) think otherwise, you're the naive one unfortunately. If people don't vote for Democrats, whether by voting for another party or staying home, they lose that power. I call that sending a message, even if I don't agree with the means. In our system, many think that threatening to take away the Democrats power is as close as we can realistically get to influencing them

Large sections of the Democratic BASE voted against Biden in the primaries. They're absolutely terrified of Democrats/left-of-center voters staying home, but they're not doing anything to address the core of the issue because that would go against the interests of the donors and lobbyists, AIPAC, etc. I'm saying, stop looking at the individual level and start looking at the core of the fucking issue with why that group you identified refuses to vote

I'm trying very hard not to wade into US election discourse because I think a lot of it is like trying to talk to a brick wall that also has terminally online brainworms but at the very least do not be one of those people who deludes themselves into thinking that they're "sending a message" or "teaching the Democrats a lesson" by not voting for Biden. That has almost never worked and the Democratic party are not suddenly going to become Marxists overnight because some 25 year-old Tumblr user didn't vote.

[antoine-roquentin]

insofar as the hot-topic on everybody’s lips has anything to do with discrimination, it has much more to do with anti-blackness and Islamophobia than with anti-Semitism. just see the sort of shit leveled against BLM for supporting Palestinians.

but if we want an examination of american policy towards israel, we have to bring in a greater amount of topics. first and foremost is the interesting phenomena whereby AIPAC and associated jewish lobbies tend to be most influential among democratic politicians, but evangelical christian zionist lobbies tend to be most influential among republicans. overall, these tend to merge together in a dark money morass. moreover, we have the influence of the “five sisters”, aka the oil lobby, who tended to support democratic politicians in the wake of the new deal and republican politicians after jimmy carter cut the oil depletion allowance. most of all, we have to examine the conceptions of americans within the bureaucracy of the executive branch and its associated think tanks. state department, treasury department, and pentagon officials, as well as those associated with for-profit american institutions like RAND corporation and the hoover institute have for decades influenced american foreign policy to a far greater degree than any lobby has, simply because the executive branch tends to be the primary instigator on any foreign topic of substance while the legislative branch tends to act mostly in matters of domestic policy. as a result, the most influential lobbying groups around israel tend to influence the peripheries of american policy around that nation, not the center. 

first off, this is not to say that israel is the only nation that lobbies, or that there is some dark israeli force influencing politics above all others. if anything, the various east asian lobbies perhaps have the most direct results on american policy. in the 1956 american presidential election, eisenhower’s campaign funds were provided entirely by the taiwanese lobby, aka the KMT, and the republican party continues their odd shows of fealty to this day. the bushes were constant fellows at the retreats of the odd korean cult run by sun myung moon, who also had connections to the yakuza and used their wealth to force various american press outlets to support reagan. not to mention the south vietnamese lobby’s influence on nixon.

rather, i want to discuss american foreign policy as it applies to the middle east. in the years during and after the second world war, there was a recognition that the predominant economic threats to american ascendancy were the developing nations in the heart of europe and east asia. their industrialization could spell the doom of american predominance in world affairs. consequently, american state planners made their best efforts to integrate and subordinate these economies with america’s, in order to derive the greatest economic benefits from their rise and perhaps stay a few steps ahead of them. one of the ways this could be accomplished was to stake control over middle eastern oil, which was of little use to the united states given its distance, but was the predominant source for europe and asia. chief among these suppliers were saudi arabia and iran. given that saudi arabia in 1945 was a backwater desert state with little in the ways of infrastructure, america worked to team up with a host of surrounding states who would have existing grudges with arab nationalist movements that might try to nationalize oil supplies and would welcome american support, specifically iran, turkey, and israel. when the key arab nationalist nation, egypt, was crushed by israel in the 1967 war, america, supported by the major oil companies, rushed to give further assistance to this nation. tens of millions of dollars of american support, in a situation where america had taken over from the uk and france as a primary supplier of local movements meant to divide middle easterners, suddenly topped a billion dollars in the years after 1967. clearly, this was not the work of a lobby, but of american state planners recognizing that israel could play a similar role in the middle east that south africa played in its region.

the israeli lobby coalesced with the christian zionist lobby after the 1977 likud victory. ironically, for those pushing anti-semitic stereotypes of jewish influence in american elections, it was american influence in israeli elections that caused this. traditionally, american evangelical beliefs had at their forefront the notion of america as a specifically christian nation against a world of anti-christian civilizations, chief among them those in the middle east. it also saw biblical prophecies about jewish reclamation of palestine raised to the forefront as something that would occur alongside the rise of a christian nation to do the lord’s work. consequently, when israel began winning military victories over countries that were seen as islamic, christian zionists began to believe that this was the work of god seen through the lens of prophecy. when the very young likud party was running for office in its second election in 1977, the american evangelical movement was there to offer it assistance, because its policy was that of israeli triumph over the non-western islamic nations surrounding israel. in turn, likud welcomed american evangelical parties, including a massive presence in jerusalem that had been forestalled by orthodox jewish parties.

this notion of a civilizational clash was solidified by 9/11. americans who had otherwise not given any specific thought to anyone who wasn’t their race or religion were suddenly noticing that people were pissed off by american imperialism. they reacted by supporting anyone who believed in the notion that america was in a clash of civilizations. dark money has broadly influenced american politics since then, but perhaps the one notion among all others among dark money users is islamophobia.

in any given year, tens of millions of dollars flow through major donors to a variety of dark money causes. AIPAC is one of the beneficiaries. it maintains an excellent political organization that recognizes new candidates and offers to tell donors to send money their way (rather than sending money itself). Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappe in Gaza in Crisis estimate israeli-lobby funding at 10-15% of congressional candidates in the 90s. robert caro estimates oil funding as being a primary component of electoral politics in the 1930s. thomas ferguson in right turn says oil funding was the key component in jimmy carter’s loss to ronald reagan in 1980. this influence has only grown since then. the think tank of former black panther david horowitz receives millions of dollars yearly, not only to fund congressional campaigns but a variety of political causes. it funds canary mission, which maintains a blacklist of students on university campuses who express any pro-palestine view whatsoever. these students, or sometimes professors, are targeted for harassment by those on his mailing list. horowitz’ views have extended to more mainstream republican causes, like his article on why reparations for slavery are a bad thing.

overall, christian and jewish zionism are a lobby that draws tens of millions of dollars a year, not only in funding from billionaires such as the heirs of defense contractor allen-bradley, steel magnate carnegie-mellon, or department store sears-roebuck, but from numerous churches and synagogues who are in on the scam of a clash of civilizations. as a result, hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to american politicians over decades who maintain pro-war, anti-black, islamophobic stances.

[schraubd]

New Congressional Black-Jewish Caucus Announced: Will It Go Anywhere?

Apparently brokered by the AJC, Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) announced the creation of a new bipartisan Congressional Black-Jewish Caucus. The other co-founding members are Reps. John Lewis (D-GA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Will Hurd (R-TX), and Lee Zeldin (R-NY). Its stated goals are to:

Raise awareness of each community's sensitivities and needs, in Congress and around the country.

Provide resources to members of Congress to empower them to bring African-American and Jewish communities together, combating stereotypes and hate and showcasing commonalities.

Support stronger hate crimes legislation and advocate for increased government resources to confront the threat of white supremacist ideology.

Support legislation and work to expand access to democracy and protect election integrity.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. The concept is great, but I have to wonder whether initiatives like this ever do anything substantive beyond the press release.

I also find the list of founding congressmen and women to be interesting (are they seeking out additional members?). The list includes two Black Democrats (Lawrence and Lewis), one Black Republican (Hurd), one White Jewish Democrat (Wasserman-Schultz), and one White Jewish Republican (Zeldin).  Let's quickly run through who they are:

Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI)

Lawrence is a third-term congresswoman from Michigan; holding the seat previously occupied by now-U.S. Senator Gary Peters. Prior to entering Congress, she was the first African-American woman to serve as mayor of Southfield. She also was a member of the unsuccessful Democratic gubernatorial ticket in 2010, serving as Virg Bernero's running mate. 

In Congress, she's a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus. I honestly don't know much about her, and don't think of her as a particularly high-profile member of Congress. But Lawrence's district has both a large Black and Jewish population, so it makes sense for her to try and take a leadership position on this question.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)

Former head of the DNC, Wasserman Schultz is probably best known as the favored target of 2016 Bernie dead-enders after they level up. That made her a target for a primary challenge from Sanders-backed Tim Canova, which got pretty nasty actually, but she ended up prevailing with 57% of the vote. She is one of the most high-profile Jewish Democrats in the House, and has what I consider to be a pretty standard political posture for a Jewish Democratic politician -- generally progressive voting record, while also being "establishment-friendly". Unfortunately, the 2016 election history means she is positively despised by the insurgent wing of the Democratic Party.

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)

One of the legends of American politics and a civil rights hero, John Lewis has massive respect within the Democratic caucus and within the CBC in particular. He's also, throughout his career, been a stalwart friend of the Jewish people -- there's probably no more common "go-to" in Congress for Jewish-Black relations than Rep. Lewis. If anyone was going to join a cause like this, it'd be him. Unfortunately, that cuts both ways -- it is in many respects less interesting that John Lewis joined this caucus, because "of course he would". It doesn't actually signal the sort of broader buy-in one would hope for.

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY)

I was honestly surprised to see he was onboard with this, as Lee Zeldin is -- how to put this gently -- a monster whose spent the past year gleefully tossing molotov cocktails all over the "Black-Jewish relationship". Ideally, being part of an initiative like this will tame Zeldin's wilder instincts -- someone can perhaps explain to him why taking an antisemitic voicemail left at his office and randomly demanding Ilhan Omar (who is never cited, mentioned, or alluded to in the message) denounce it is not how we play nicely with others. More likely, Zeldin will simply end up blowing this thing up from the inside.

What's really going on here, I imagine, is a stark example of the limits of trying to form a bipartisan caucus of Blacks and Jews. If one is simply looking to foster healthy relations between the Black and Jewish community in Congress, Republicans are, with all due respect, kind of irrelevant. But if you absolutely insist on having a Jewish Republican in the mix, Zeldin has the almost singular virtue of, well, being one (the only other Jewish Republican in Congress is Tennessee Rep. David Kustoff. He's a right-wing extremist too, though I still suspect he'd have been a better choice).

Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX)

Speaking of slim pickings, Hurd is who you get when you decide you also need a Black Republican -- he's the only one in the House (swing over to the Senate and you've got South Carolina's Tim Scott as well). He is, to be fair, a much less offensive figure than Zeldin. He also barely squeaked out re-election last cycle against Gina Ortiz Jones, whose already gunning for a rematch, so he might not be around Congress next cycle.

* * *

What do we make of this set? Leave Hurd and Zeldin aside -- they're there for obvious reasons but otherwise are non-important. We'll even assume for sake of argument that Zeldin doesn't torpedo the whole deal.

Well, Wasserman Schultz is well respected in the Jewish community but also is a lightning rod for the Bernie-supporting wing of the party. With all due respect to the Florida Congresswoman, whom I actually rather like, she's carrying a lot of weight as the only Jewish Democratic Representative in the group, and I'm skeptical of the vitality of representing the "Jewish" side of Congress through her and Zeldin. Meanwhile, Lawrence is not high-profile, and I don't think really will do much to bring in more support from the CBC more broadly. Lewis is, of course, very high-profile, but he's also in some ways uniquely ill-positioned to signal buy-in from the CBC writ large for the reasons given above.

What's more interesting, then, is who isn't in the caucus. Now again, this was just launched, and so it's entirely possible more people will join. But the question is, who are the sorts of people who, if they did join, would signal that there might be a potential for success here?

On the Jewish side of the equation, you'd want to see both someone from new generation -- say, Elissa Slotkin or Max Rose, or perhaps Jamie Raskin -- and/or a less polarizing member of the old guard (like Jerry Nadler or Jan Schakowsky). Andy Levin -- newly-elected, but part of the Levin political dynasty in Michigan -- would be a great bridging figure here too. Another obvious name to look out for is Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, who actually represents a majority-Black district. If he joins, it suggests that this sort of initiative is actually being viewed as a positive. If he doesn't, well, it sends a different signal.

With respect to prospective Black members, you'd want to see something similar: someone from the old guard beyond Lewis, and then someone from the new wave. On the latter, I won't even bother mentioning she-who-must-not-me-named (though again, what does it say that Zeldin can be a member but she can't). But Lauren Underwood, Lucy McBath, or (dare to dream) Ayanna Pressley would be outstanding additions. With respect to more senior figures, Karen Bass or Elijah Cummings or even my own Congresswoman Barbara Lee would be great. There's also a "middle seniority" group that contains some promising figures, like Andre Carson (he'd be a fantastic pick-up, as the other Black Muslim serving in Congress right now) and Hakeem Jeffries (Jeffries, sadly, seems to be at risk of becoming a new Wasserman Schultz or Tom Perez -- which is to say, someone with a solidly progressive voting record who gets identified as a barrier to the advancement of some further-left hero and therefore is transmogrified into a tool of the neoliberal neoliberalist's neoliberalism).

In particular: I see the point of a caucus like this as not just comprising of itself of people who already agree on everything, but also ones who can fairly and effectively communicate their respective community's "sensitivities and needs" -- a project which often will involve explaining why practices by the other community which might internally seem innocuous are actually hurtful. In the Omar dialogues, for example, this is where we get Jewish members explaining why Omar's comments -- perhaps seen as just making the anodyne point that "AIPAC has influence in Washington" -- were harmful and seemed to leverage antisemitic tropes; and also where we get Black members explaining why the unyielding fury of the backlash -- perhaps seen as just "calling out antisemitism" --  were harmful and seemed to reflect a minute policing of Black politicians.

In other words, if you're running through potential members of the caucus with a red pen and looking for all the heresies that should bar them from membership, I'd urge you to stop. Yes, some level of overt antagonism is probably incompatible with productively participating in a project like this (but then: see Zeldin, apparently). But not all disagreements are akin to "overt antagonism", and I don't think any of the names I've listed stand outside the realm of regular disagreement. A functioning caucus that is designed to be a space where both community's can communicate their respective concerns and sensitivities can and probably should have some people who do not start out on precisely the same page. Speaking from the Jewish angle, it is in particular not reasonable to expect this caucus be "Black politicians come into the room and agree that everything the Jewish community has been saying and doing vis-a-vis the Black community is correct and laudatory" (and, of course, neither vice versa).

Finally, I don't want to say any of the people I mentioned above are obligated to join this caucus, or that it reflects badly on them or signals they "don't care about Black-Jewish relationships" if they don't. Congress is a busy place, and these people have things to do. This is one cause among many -- it's one I happen to think is important, but there are lots of issues lots of people think are important. And of course, these Congressmen and women are almost certainly better positioned than I am to see if this caucus has even the potential to turn into something "real" beyond the press release. If it's going to be a waste of time anyway, there's no need for them to cede their limited time to be wasted.

All I am suggesting is that, for a caucus like this to actually succeed, it needs to gain a membership that signifies buy-in from a solid cross-sample of the relevant communities. I don't think the initial membership group does that on its own.

via The Debate Link http://bit.ly/2KpE6VI

[shybarbarianglitter]

I've definitely noticed that AIPAC has gotten a lot of attention from the media due to their large campaign contributions in Democratic primaries. I understand that AIPAC is using millions of dollars to influence the outcome of elections and the implications that can have on democracy. However, I will admit that it's difficult for me to criticize AIPAC because I support candidates who take a pro-Israel stance. This article mentions another pro-Israel PAC, J Street. I've never heard of J Street, but from what I've read, I think this organization aligns more with my beliefs than AIPAC. J Street advocates for the US government to take a hardline anti-Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Now that I know about this organization, I'd like to pay attention to congressional race funding to see how J Street uses its money. Will they try to back more pro-Palestinian democrats that AIPAC opposes?