AIPAC

Not so long ago in America, immediately after a Democratic politician announced a run for president, he or she would make a series of public gestures supporting Israel. This would range from a major address before an American-Jewish audience, to the required visit to the Holy Land. In a way, even mild criticism of the Jewish state would have amounted to political suicide when it came to a Democrat running for high office. Historical, cultural, political and geo-strategic considerations – including the influence of a politically active American-Jewish community whose members resided in key electoral states and contributed money for the Democratic party – made it politically axiomatic to back Israel.

When Ilhan Omar says that there’s too much money in American politics, she’s stating the obvious. That’s why I support her brave campaign against the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Realtors, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, General Electric, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Business Roundtable, the AARP, and Boeing. These are America’s top 10 lobby groups, ranked by total spending over the last 20 years. In 2018, the US Chamber of Commerce spent $94.8 million on lobbying. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, spent $21.7 million and surged to Number Eight on the charts. The America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) ranked Number 157, and spent $3.5 million.

What moves the wheels of American politics? Is it a dedicated tireless commitment to public service? A strong desire to better the lives of constituents? A genuine ideology? Maybe sometimes, in the odd rare case. But more often that not, it’s money. Money funds elections, it funds events all over Washington, it funds lobbyists who work tirelessly to make their cause seem like the only thing worth caring about at any given moment. Single issue partisan groups like the NRA, J Street and Emily’s List spent over $300m in 2018, over $230m of which went directly to candidates. Call me naive, but it seems possible that those donations, often vital to win closely contested districts, could perhaps have an impact on those candidate’s views once elected.