The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which describes itself as a bipartisan advocate for US-Israel relations, has spent roughly $28 million in independent expenditures this election cycle through its super PAC, United Democracy Project, while routing an additional $9 million through affiliated and pop-up PACs, according to Federal Election Commission disclosures cited by American Prospect executive editor David Dayen. Progressive primary challengers have made AIPAC's financial involvement a central campaign issue, and in at least several contested races the group's candidates have lost.
AIPAC's campaign spending becomes a liability in Democratic primaries
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which describes itself as a bipartisan advocate for US-Israel relations, has spent roughly $28 million in independent expenditures this election cycle through its super PAC, United Democracy Project, while routing an additional $9 million through affiliated and pop-up PACs, according to Federal Election Commission disclosures cited by American Prospect executive editor David Dayen. Progressive primary challengers have made AIPAC's financial involvement a central campaign issue, and in at least several contested races the group's candidates have lost.
AIPAC was founded in the 1950s as a lobbying organization and for decades operated primarily by advocating directly to members of Congress. According to Dayen, that changed approximately five years ago when the group began using super PACs to intervene in primary elections.
Dayen attributes the strategic shift in part to the 2018 primary victories of progressive Democrats including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib, who held sharply critical views of US-Israel policy. He said AIPAC may have sought to provide a counterweight to that trend, though he acknowledged he could not speak to the group's internal reasoning.
AIPAC's super PAC, United Democracy Project, has raised approximately $100 million this cycle, per FEC disclosures. Dayen argues the disclosed $28 million in independent expenditures understates total spending because United Democracy Project has transferred about $9 million to other PACs.
In Illinois, AIPAC set up two PACs — Elect Chicago Women and Affordable Chicago Now — and funneled money from United Democracy Project into them to support four candidates in open-seat Chicago-area races. Dayen said viewers watching the resulting advertisements would not have been able to identify AIPAC as the funding source. AIPAC won two of the four Illinois races and lost two.
In one Illinois race in the Evanston area, state senator Laura Fine was the AIPAC-backed candidate. After AIPAC's financial involvement became public, Fine finished third despite having millions of dollars in support behind her, according to Dayen.
In the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, AIPAC spent approximately $30 million supporting Rep. Haley Stevens. Her opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, repeatedly highlighted that connection. Stevens lost the primary.
Dayen described the layering of PAC transfers as sometimes going two, three, or four organizations deep. He cited as one example a PAC called Crush MAGA PAC, which is affiliated with Save Democracy, which in turn received $100,000 from United Democracy Project. Emily's List, a well-known organization supporting pro-choice women, accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from Democratic Majority for Israel, a group Dayen described as not formally affiliated with AIPAC but aligned with similar candidates.
AIPAC releases disclosures as required by the FEC but does not publicly identify which races or candidates specific transfers are earmarked for, according to Dayen.
AIPAC responded to a statement by Sen. Bernie Sanders — in which Sanders denounced what he called the extermination of Gaza and called for an end to military aid to Israel — by characterizing the statement as a hate-filled rant and blood libel, and by noting Sanders did not mention Hamas's October 7 attack. Dayen said this approach of framing criticism of Israel as antisemitism is seen by many Democrats as a cynical deflection from concerns about money in politics.
Dayen, who identified himself as Jewish, said covering the flow of money from Jewish political groups involves personal discomfort, but argued the core issues are policy-based: US government funding of military operations in Gaza and the role of super PACs in determining who reaches Washington.
- AIPAC was not contacted for direct response to the specific allegations about PAC layering and money laundering characterizations; its stated positions are drawn only from its public description of itself and its response to Sanders.
- The source does not provide AIPAC's own explanation for why it began using super PACs or its characterization of the pop-up PAC strategy.
- The source does not include responses from candidates who received AIPAC support, such as Rep. Haley Stevens or state senator Laura Fine.
- The source does not specify the total amount Emily's List received from Democratic Majority for Israel, using only the phrase 'hundreds of thousands of dollars.'
- The source does not establish whether any of the described PAC transfer arrangements violate FEC rules or any other law.
- The source does not describe AIPAC's overall win-loss record across all 2026 primaries in which it intervened, only selected races.