AIPAC's millions of dollars meet limits in US elections

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the most prominent pro-Israel advocacy organisations in US politics, has faced setbacks in recent election campaigns despite spending millions of dollars to influence their outcomes.

In July, New York Democratic Congressman Pat Ryan said he would return AIPAC-related funds after voting to halt additional US military assistance to Israel. Ryan, who had received the organisation's endorsement, said he no longer wanted its support.

The following month, progressive Democrat Abdul El-Sayed defeated Congresswoman Haley Stevens in Michigan's Democratic Senate primary on 4 August, despite a major spending campaign by AIPAC and its allies. The groups spent nearly $30 million supporting Stevens and opposing El-Sayed, according to media reports on the race.

AIPAC's efforts also failed to prevent progressive Democrat Aisha Wahab from winning a special election for California's 14th Congressional District on 21 August. The AIPAC-linked organisations spent nearly $2.5 million supporting her opponent, Melissa Hernandez. Wahab won with more than 53% of the vote, with 95% of ballots counted, according to Reuters.

The results raise a broader question: how does AIPAC translate financial power into political influence, and why does that influence sometimes fall short?

From lobbying to election spending

AIPAC has spent decades building congressional support for a strong US-Israel relationship. Established in 1954 as the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs, it adopted its current name in 1959. Over the years, it developed a large grassroots network, encouraging members to engage directly with elected officials and participate in political advocacy.

AIPAC says it is an American organisation funded by Americans, not directed or funded by the Israeli government. It also says its membership includes Democrats, Republicans and independents.

Its traditional approach has centred on lobbying lawmakers, mobilising supporters and advocating policies that strengthen US-Israel ties. In recent years, however, its involvement in electoral politics has become more visible through political committees that contribute to candidates or spend independently to influence election outcomes.

This shift has brought AIPAC into increasingly contentious contests, particularly Democratic primaries, where disagreements over Israel's military actions and US military assistance to Israel have become more prominent.

How does AIPAC influence elections?

Ahead of the 2022 elections, AIPAC established two political arms: AIPAC PAC (political action committee), which can make direct contributions to candidates within legal limits, and the United Democracy Project (UDP), a super PAC (a political action committee that can raise and spend unlimited amounts independently to support or oppose candidates).

AIPAC PAC can contribute directly to federal candidates within legal limits. UDP, by contrast, can raise and spend unlimited amounts independently to support or oppose candidates, but it cannot donate directly to their campaigns or coordinate its independent spending with them.

UDP's spending can include television and digital advertisements, mail campaigns and other efforts to influence voters. It has also financed advertisements attacking candidates whose positions on Israel differ from those of AIPAC.

AIPAC encourages members and its wider network of donors to support candidates it considers pro-Israel. Together, these channels allow the organisation to combine direct campaign contributions with much larger sums spent independently on electoral contests.

Its strategy is bipartisan: it supports pro-Israel Democrats and Republicans rather than operating exclusively within either party. But its high-profile electoral battles have increasingly centred on Democratic primaries, where progressive candidates have challenged longstanding US policy towards Israel.

Who pays for it?

AIPAC says its members and donors are American citizens. Its political committees disclose their finances under federal campaign-finance rules, although the transparency requirements for the committees differ from those applying to AIPAC itself.

Federal Election Commission data show that UDP received about $109.7 million between January 2025 and 31 August 2026, including approximately $106.2 million in individual contributions. It reported total disbursements of about $83.6 million during the period, including $53.4 million in independent expenditures.

Major donors to AIPAC-linked political efforts have included wealthy investors and business figures such as WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum, hedge-fund manager Paul Singer, Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus, media investor Haim Saban and Apollo Global Management chief executive Marc Rowan.

AIPAC itself operates as a nonprofit social-welfare organisation. Unlike its political committees, it is not generally required to disclose its full donor list publicly. This distinction has fuelled debate over the sources of political money and the relationship between AIPAC's broader activities and the spending of its affiliated committees.

Where has the money worked?

One of AIPAC's clearest electoral successes came in New York's 16th Congressional District in 2024. UDP spent about $14.6 million in the Democratic primary, including nearly $9.9 million opposing progressive Congressman Jamaal Bowman and about $4.8 million supporting his challenger, George Latimer. Latimer defeated Bowman with more than 58% of the vote.

UDP also spent more than $5 million opposing Missouri Democratic Congresswoman Cori Bush. Wesley Bell defeated Bush in the Democratic primary. AIPAC celebrated both contests as victories for pro-Israel candidates.

The strategy continued in 2026. In Maryland's 5th Congressional District, AIPAC-affiliated UDP spent about $5.7 million supporting state Delegate Adrian Boafo, who won the Democratic nomination in a crowded primary field. The race demonstrated that substantial outside spending can help candidates competing against rivals with different political positions.

These victories have reinforced AIPAC's reputation as a formidable force in US electoral politics. But they do not establish that money alone determined the outcomes: candidate appeal, local issues, campaign organisation and voter preferences also matter.

But money does not always buy victory

The defeats of Bowman and Bush show how AIPAC-linked spending can be effective in some contests. The Michigan and California results, however, illustrate the limits of that strategy.

In Michigan, El-Sayed won the Democratic Senate nomination despite the substantial spending against him. His campaign benefited from progressive support and opposition to unconditional US military assistance to Israel. The result showed that voters could prioritise a candidate's wider political platform over the message promoted by outside groups.

In California, UDP's spending on behalf of Hernandez did not prevent Wahab from winning the special election. The contest highlighted divisions within the Democratic Party over Israel and the role of outside money in selecting candidates.

Zohran Mamdani's 2025 Democratic mayoral primary victory in New York offers a broader illustration of the limits of establishment-backed campaigns. His grassroots campaign, centred on affordability and economic issues, defeated former Governor Andrew Cuomo, who had support from wealthy donors and outside groups.

Mamdani's victory should not, however, be described as an AIPAC electoral defeat. AIPAC was not the principal financial force in that mayoral contest. Rather, the result illustrates a wider point: large financial resources do not automatically translate into voter support.

Is AIPAC's political spending legal?

There is no established finding that AIPAC's electoral activities described here are illegal. Lobbying, political contributions within federal limits and independent political advertising are lawful under US campaign-finance rules, provided the relevant requirements are followed.

Critics object to the scale of the spending and argue that expensive advertisements can distort political debate or give wealthy donors disproportionate influence over candidate selection. Supporters counter that AIPAC is exercising the same political rights available to other interest groups, including labour unions, business organisations and environmental advocates.

The distinction between direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures is central to this debate. Federal law limits the amount a political action committee can contribute directly to a candidate, while super PACs can raise and spend unlimited sums independently. The rules do not guarantee that such spending will be effective, nor do they establish that an organisation controls the candidates it supports.

AIPAC remains an influential force in US politics, with a substantial donor network and the capacity to spend heavily in competitive primaries. Yet the results in Michigan and California show that its financial resources cannot guarantee victory.

The contest over AIPAC is increasingly part of a wider debate within the Democratic Party over Israel, Palestine, US foreign policy and the influence of big money in American elections. Ultimately, the question is not whether AIPAC can spend millions, but how far that spending can shape voters' choices.