AIPAC’s United Democracy Project, along with its offshoot DMFI, has funneled money to a network of Super PACs now backing the San Francisco supervisor.
What this reporting shows is not a “mystery” or a “gotcha” — it’s the standard operating procedure of AIPAC’s influence machine. When a candidate publicly vows not to take AIPAC money, the network simply routes the same dollars through a chain of pop‑up PACs, nonprofits, and shell entities until the original source is buried under paperwork. By the time voters see the ads, the money has already done its work and the disclosure deadline is safely after Election Day.
The Connie Chan case is a textbook example. DMFI and AIPAC’s UDP quietly seed EDW Action Fund. EDW spawns a new PAC with a voter‑friendly name. That PAC floods the district with nearly half a million dollars in support — all while maintaining the fiction that the candidate is “not backed by AIPAC.” The structure is designed to preserve plausible deniability for the politician and perfect opacity for the public.
This isn’t about one race in San Francisco. It’s about a political ecosystem that allows a single interest group to shape primaries across the country while evading the scrutiny every other donor network is expected to face. If a candidate benefits from AIPAC’s money — whether it arrives directly or through a daisy chain of intermediaries — voters deserve to know before they cast a ballot.
It also shows how “unprogressive” our California establishment Democrats really are and the lengths they go to hide their connections to genocide. California is supposed to be a progressive “very blue” state but reality is that corporate money dictates our polítics much more than in other states. Here big money rules- would be truly amazing and a real sign of change if a real progressive actually was able to beat the establishment.
What this reporting shows is not a “mystery” or a “gotcha” — it’s the standard operating procedure of AIPAC’s influence machine. When a candidate publicly vows not to take AIPAC money, the network simply routes the same dollars through a chain of pop‑up PACs, nonprofits, and shell entities until the original source is buried under paperwork. By the time voters see the ads, the money has already done its work and the disclosure deadline is safely after Election Day.
The Connie Chan case is a textbook example. DMFI and AIPAC’s UDP quietly seed EDW Action Fund. EDW spawns a new PAC with a voter‑friendly name. That PAC floods the district with nearly half a million dollars in support — all while maintaining the fiction that the candidate is “not backed by AIPAC.” The structure is designed to preserve plausible deniability for the politician and perfect opacity for the public.
This isn’t about one race in San Francisco. It’s about a political ecosystem that allows a single interest group to shape primaries across the country while evading the scrutiny every other donor network is expected to face. If a candidate benefits from AIPAC’s money — whether it arrives directly or through a daisy chain of intermediaries — voters deserve to know before they cast a ballot.
It also shows how “unprogressive” our California establishment Democrats really are and the lengths they go to hide their connections to genocide. California is supposed to be a progressive “very blue” state but reality is that corporate money dictates our polítics much more than in other states. Here big money rules- would be truly amazing and a real sign of change if a real progressive actually was able to beat the establishment.
Yes, "standard operating procedure of AIPAC’s influence machine'
AIPAC installed M Dexter as my US Rep with only $6.5M:
https://meyerja.substack.com/p/three-aipac-spigots