Progressive anger with AIPAC rises over Bush loss

Progressives are growing increasingly angry with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) after “squad” member Rep. Cori Bush’s (D-Mo.) primary loss earlier this week.

Bush was unseated by fellow Democrat Wesley Bell in a primary where AIPAC spent aggressively against her. Just weeks prior, the group poured $15 million in a primary to defeat Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.). Both races taken together, AIPAC invested nearly $24 million to take out two of the most prominent Black members of the left-wing cohort.

“She was such a fighter for everyday people,” said one progressive organizer who was cheering for both Bush’s and Bowman’s reelection efforts. 

“Now all that district has is a Democratic nominee who has proven that his loyalty rests with big money interests that don’t give a damn about hungry babies in St. Louis,” the progressive said.

AIPAC celebrated Bush’s loss against Bell, a prosecutor from St. Louis, as a key step toward protecting the country’s alliance with Israel.

“Our sole criterion for supporting candidates or opposing candidates is their position on the U.S.-Israel relationship,” AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann told The Hill after Bush’s loss. 

Wittmann pointed to Bell and George Latimer, who ousted Bowman in his Bronx-Westchester district, as important pickups whom he believes still carry the progressive torch in less divisive ways. 

“The pro-Israel mainstream has sent a powerful message that America stands with Israel as it battles Iranian terrorist proxies,” he said. “Voters across America are rejecting anti-Israel voices in favor of candidates who understand the vital importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship.”

Progressives rooting for Bush and Bowman’s seats to be saved vehemently disagree with that view. Those who came out against AIPAC’s spending say that the group has become more prominent and has a greater record now of defeating their opposition. 

While many on the progressive left are united in anger at the group’s influence, there is some daylight in terms of how they think they should counter it.

Progressives in Congress and organizers working to maintain their coalition say that changing the campaign finance structure is the most important step to curb the power of outside spending groups like AIPAC. 

“If there’s any one strategy to focus on in the aftermath of Bowman and Bush’s election results, it’s campaign finance reform,” said Hassan Martini, who runs No Dem Left Behind, a progressive group that recruits and trains new left-wing candidates.

Martini, who like many Democratic strategists has been critical of the seemingly boundless cash influx, said that such reform should be of interest to both parties and the factions within them. 

Pushing for changes would “empower democracy by amplifying small-dollar donors, increasing transparency in funding, and lowering barriers for everyday candidates,” he said. 

Since Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton, progressives have been pushing to restructure the system powering elections but haven’t gotten very far. Sanders was able to get his presidential campaign through two cycles using that model, but other candidates have replicated it with different levels of success, depending on their district, the strength of their rivals and their individual flaws. 

“AIPAC had to spend $8.5 million to get 51% of the vote to defeat Cori Bush,” Sanders wrote in a post on the social platform X. “Billionaires buying elections is not what this country is supposed to be about. We have to end Citizens United and super PACs and move to public funding of elections.”

Others on the left speculate that things will get worse before they get better, meaning that there could be more candidate casualties as the country prepares for a presidential election and possible shift of power on Capitol Hill.

“I haven’t heard of an actual strategy to combat AIPAC money deciding races. If I’m being totally honest, I haven’t seen a cohesive or significant left strategy in quite some time,” said Tim Black, an independent media figure with progressive leanings who hosts a popular YouTube show. 

Another progressive projected even less confidence in the left’s approach to AIPAC.

“I think the Democratic ticket would rather lose the election than defy Israel,” said the left-wing voice, who is in touch with prominent leaders in the movement. “I would love to be wrong about that.”

“In the short term, voters looking for decency and morality on this issue will be very frustrated,” the source said, calling it “a runaway freight train.”

“Both the populist left and right are getting more furious about our Israel policy every passing day,” the source said. “There will be a huge uprising next year, if this conflict continues, no matter who is president. And if Israel starts this giant war in the Middle East and we back them, there will be the largest protests this country has ever seen.”

Bush herself gave voice to the growing anger over AIPAC in the immediate aftermath of her primary defeat.

“AIPAC, I’m coming to tear your kingdom down,” Bush said Tuesday night, sparking backlash from moderate Democrats.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was among those who denounced the remarks.

“This kind of rhetoric is inflammatory and divisive and incredibly unhelpful,” she said to reporters. “We’re going to continue to condemn any type of political rhetoric in that way, in that vein.”

President Biden and Vice President Harris, the party’s new nominee, did not wade into the primary, much to the chagrin of progressives who argued it could have helped Bush win. 

Bush and Bowman both lost over what some deem as careless errors and bad optics, including a federal investigation into Bush’s use of security and Bowman’s improper pulling of a fire alarm in a Capitol Hill building.

Adding to the narrative that they were against Biden, Bush voted against the infrastructure bill and both called for a cease-fire during the Israel-Hamas war. 

Progressives say those political blunders could have been overcome in isolation, but taken together made them easy targets. And their firmness in what AIPAC, the United Democracy Project and other pro-Israel groups deem as working against their cause was made worse by the lack of support from the administration. 

“Quickly, many so-called progressives will find themselves caught being much less committed to the issues than Bush or Bowman,” said Black.

“They seem far more committed to maintaining this pathetic identity politics lest be branded a racist, a misogynist or a Trump supporter,” he said.