AIPAC Conceals Election Spending via Shell PACs as Group Faces Backlash

For many voters in Illinois, a 30-second election ad that aired in mid-March appeared unremarkable.

The video opened with cheerful music, and a narrator praised congressional candidate Bushra Amiwala as a fighter for “real economic justice” and “the real deal.”

But the video was not part of a genuine effort to elect Amiwala to the U.S. House of Representatives, and the candidate quickly disavowed it.

Public records reviewed by Al Jazeera show the commercial was paid for by a political action committee (PAC) linked to the largest pro-Israel lobby group in the United States.

Funding came from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which has poured tens of millions of dollars into election campaigns to defeat candidates critical of Israel.

With the midterm primary season underway, advocates say AIPAC is influencing many congressional races, and they argue its tactics undermine election transparency.

“Every cycle AIPAC shows just how broken our democracy is and how corrupt our political finance system is,” said Usamah Andrabi, a spokesperson for the progressive group Justice Democrats.

“Every cycle they are at the forefront of exploiting those gaps for their right-wing donors and at the expense of voters.”

In Illinois, the ad aimed to boost Amiwala to siphon votes from more viable progressive candidates, particularly Palestinian American activist Kat Abughazaleh, who narrowly lost the race.

Although the Chicago Progressive Partnership, the group whose name appeared on the ad, was widely believed linked to AIPAC, it did not have to disclose its funding source until after the March elections.

Federal Election Commission receipts now show the sole funder of Chicago Progressive Partnership was Elect Chicago Women (ECW), another PAC, which contributed $1 million to the partnership.

ECW raised more than $4 million from the United Democracy Project (UDP), AIPAC’s election arm, and an additional $1 million from investor Blair Frank, a major UDP donor.

AIPAC also contributed $1.3 million to a third PAC, Affordable Chicago Now, in what critics call an effort to conceal its Illinois spending.

Palestinian rights advocates say the use of “shell PACs” shows the pro-Israel group has become “toxic” among U.S. voters, arguing AIPAC employs a Russian doll approach by funneling funds from one PAC to another to hide its involvement in primary races.

“They are so unpopular amongst the Democratic Party that they have to hide themselves,” Andrabi told Al Jazeera. “We have to keep exposing them and looking under every rock to see whether or not this shell PAC or that shell PAC is funded by AIPAC.”

Part of the backlash stems from broader public disillusionment with Israel-backed policies, including the joint U.S.-Israeli war against Iran and the genocidal assault on Gaza, which AIPAC supports.

As a result, Israel has rapidly lost support among the U.S. public.

This week, a New York Times and Siena College survey found 37 percent of U.S. voters sympathize with Palestinians, while 35 percent sympathize with Israelis.

Among Democratic respondents, 57 percent expressed greater sympathy for Palestinians.

The Pew Research Center indicated an even stronger left-wing backlash, with a survey earlier this year showing 80 percent of Democratic respondents held unfavorable views of Israel.

For many voters, AIPAC symbolizes the oversized influence of campaign spending in U.S. politics, turning the group into a pariah, especially among Democrats.

Some politicians who previously received support from AIPAC now disavow the group.

Omar Shakir, executive director of the U.S.-based rights group DAWN, said AIPAC’s use of shell groups reflects that growing repudiation.

Routing funds “through layered PAC structures designed to obscure where the money originates reflects weakness, not strength,” he told Al Jazeera.

“They can’t defend Israel’s genocide, apartheid and ethnic cleansing, so they’re rigging the system outside of public view.”

A 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allows corporations and advocacy groups to spend unlimited amounts on elections as long as they do not directly coordinate with the campaigns they back.

In many cases, PACs do not have to list all donors until after elections. Some non-profits that influence elections, known as dark money groups, never have to reveal donors, and few rules govern messaging.

Experts say AIPAC exploits these loopholes to advance its goals, but the lack of transparency causes confusion in many races.

For example, in a competitive Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, candidate Ala Stanford insisted she did not receive AIPAC money.

But the largest spender in the race was 314 Action Fund, a PAC that backs Democratic scientists and supported Stanford, a pediatric surgeon.

AIPAC transferred $1 million to 314 Action Fund in the 2024 election cycle, but the extent of its involvement in the Pennsylvania race remains unclear.

Progressive state legislator Chris Rabb, who has condemned Israel’s Gaza atrocities as genocide, won that primary on Tuesday.

In Kentucky, AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups helped defeat Congressman Thomas Massie, a rare Republican critic of President Donald Trump.

It was the most expensive House primary in U.S. history, but the donors of the PAC that spent the most money in that race have not fully disclosed their identities.

While proving AIPAC’s spending in some races may be difficult, Andrabi said candidates cannot merely distance themselves from the pro-Israel group.

“We know that AIPAC does not throw money at candidates unless those candidates will rubber stamp their agenda in Washington,” he said.

“So it’s not just about what they say and whether or not they deny they have AIPAC support. Let’s ask them what policies they will support in Congress. Will they support an arms embargo against Israel? Will they call a genocide a genocide? Will they stop all funding to the Israeli government and military? That’s a good litmus test for us to do.”

Beyond UDP and associated PACs, AIPAC has encouraged individual donors to contribute to campaigns of 361 legislators, including Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson and Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

The array of AIPAC-backed members of Congress spans the ideological spectrum, from prominent liberals like Ted Lieu to far-right anti-Muslim figures including Randy Fine.

In his 2020 memoir, former President Barack Obama acknowledged AIPAC’s Washington influence, saying politicians feared “crossing” the lobby group.

“Those who criticized Israeli policy too loudly risked being tagged as ‘anti-Israel’ (and possibly anti-Semitic) and confronted with a well-funded opponent in the next election,” Obama wrote.

AIPAC did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment by publication time.

Despite its well-documented clout, AIPAC’s organizational structure and spending remain murky.

On Wednesday, DAWN released a report relying on LinkedIn disclosures to track the group’s current and former staff and their professional connections.

It found many AIPAC employees also held jobs with the U.S. and Israeli governments.

“DAWN’s analysis shows that 66 former AIPAC staffers currently work in the US government, from Congress to the White House to various branches of the military; nearly two dozen current AIPAC staffers previously worked in US government bodies,” the report said.

“The personal and professional relationships that result from this type of revolving door form the backbone of political influence in Washington, which is indicated in the hundreds of professional connections between AIPAC staffers and US federal and state employees.”

The group called on AIPAC to make public the names of people who lead and work for the organization.

“AIPAC should publish, at minimum, a current leadership page on its official website,” DAWN said.

“The page should identify AIPAC’s officers, board of directors, senior staff, and department heads with photos and biographies. AIPAC should also publish an organizational chart showing how the institution is structured. This is the floor that comparable tax-exempt nonprofits already meet.”

DAWN noted that most leading advocacy groups, including itself, publish staff and board names and bios.

Because of AIPAC’s tax-exempt nonprofit status, Shakir said taxpayers “effectively subsidise” the pro-Israel group.

“They deserve to know how AIPAC works to shape US policy to the Middle East and who works for it,” he told Al Jazeera.