After several AIPAC network fundraisers translating to almost $200,000 for Craig's Senate campaign, staffers are saying the pro-Israel lobby group "hasn't spent a dime."
As the opposition to AIPAC grows, Zionist PACS are simply branching off with new unfamiliar names to avoid scrutiny. Their ownership and influence of the US Congress continues unabated.
TrackingAipac website shows Craig received more from Aipac in the 2024 cycle than anyone else in Minnesota including Tom Emmer. A political carpet bagger from Arkansas, her moral compass appears available to the highest bidder. Just look at how, as a journalist in West Memphis, she ends up as head of global HR at St Jude Medical in Minnesota and a leader at the St Paul Chamber of Commerce. She has Fetterman and Sinema written all over her.
Craig’s campaign trying to split hairs over “AIPAC hasn’t spent a dime” while benefiting from its fundraising network is exactly the kind of technicality voters are getting tired of. People aren’t just looking at direct PAC checks anymore—they’re paying attention to the broader ecosystem of influence and what it signals about a candidate’s priorities. If AIPAC support is suddenly something to distance from publicly, that says a lot about how much the political ground has shifted. The real question is whether that shift will translate into actual policy changes, or just better messaging.
"Of course, **candidates cannot control who fundraises for them**. But Craig benefited from hundreds of thousands in donations from AIPAC’s network before appearing to disavow them this year—after AIPAC proved to be an election liability in two major races with progressive challengers. AIPAC and other special interest groups are not required to report the bundling they do, meaning that PACs are able to come in behind candidates without direct spending, which has to be reported."
The emphasis added is my own. I highlight the text because electoral politics have become outright diabolical - I could see a strategy emerge in which AIPAC or other toxic groups **purposely** "fund" opposition candidates to draw down progressive support, or inject uncertainty into a particular campaign.
To be clear, I don't believe this is the case in this instance. Just looking forward.
Rather than feeling hopeless we can do something. We can vow to never vote for another candidate who takes money from Israel or who gives money to an Israel that violates international law. We can demand that no dual citizen be allowed to work for or with the U.S. government.
I find it fascinating that one of those proposing the non-dual citizens, is Randy Fine. It's kind of terrifying to know one might support legislation proposed by Fine, but in this case, he may have a point, and at least one fellow, Florida, Republican Congressperson will have to make a hard choice.
It is important for people to know whether candidates for elected office and elected officials are accepting PAC money. The fact voters know which candidates have taken PAC money means there is some transparency, although significant dark money undermines transparency. Many if not most American voters are tired of elected officials who serve the interests of PAC paymasters over public interests. If Craig's acceptance of AIPAC money is bad for her brand, so be it. Craig chose to accept the money and some voters question whether, if elected, she will serve the public or her PAC paymasters.
Knowing about PAC money isn't enough. There is something called Donor directed funds. Numerous donors make individual donations that are directed by some organization, and somehow or other, the candidate knows who directed those 'individual' contributions.
AIPAC simply accomplishes this through shills, straw donors and satellite PACs.
Glenn Greenwald supports the Citizens United decision because of the 1st amendment, the other reason not to bother opposing CU is futility; as rich people will always get their money to their desired destination.
Non-oligarchs simply have to get off their ass*s. No short cut. Try forming 3rd parties perhaps.
Glenn is consistent in his support of the first amendment. I'm not sure I'd call it cranky, but it must be annoying for some. Citizens United was a disaster for democracy, and working towards that Constitutional amendment that would overturn it is a good thing to do. There are numerous groups doing just that. Federal funding of elections would be good as well. Bringing back the fairness doctrine, limiting the number of media any one company could own, as used to be, is another.
I have reluctantly come around to Glenn's position on the Buckley v. Valeo line, including Citizens United. I know its trite to say, "it's complicated," but it really IS complicated. Having the government referee expenditures related to speech leads to the same place as refereeing speech itself, as the government is always happy to do.
There is no substitute for getting off one's a** and getting in the streets or online or wherever to be heard.
Its kinda like gerrymandering, every party does it, and only the losers complain.
For a more libertarian kind of view, read Justice Scalia's dissent in Rutan v. Republican Party.
AIPAC has far too much power over US electoral politics. That must change!
As the opposition to AIPAC grows, Zionist PACS are simply branching off with new unfamiliar names to avoid scrutiny. Their ownership and influence of the US Congress continues unabated.
TrackingAipac website shows Craig received more from Aipac in the 2024 cycle than anyone else in Minnesota including Tom Emmer. A political carpet bagger from Arkansas, her moral compass appears available to the highest bidder. Just look at how, as a journalist in West Memphis, she ends up as head of global HR at St Jude Medical in Minnesota and a leader at the St Paul Chamber of Commerce. She has Fetterman and Sinema written all over her.
Craig’s campaign trying to split hairs over “AIPAC hasn’t spent a dime” while benefiting from its fundraising network is exactly the kind of technicality voters are getting tired of. People aren’t just looking at direct PAC checks anymore—they’re paying attention to the broader ecosystem of influence and what it signals about a candidate’s priorities. If AIPAC support is suddenly something to distance from publicly, that says a lot about how much the political ground has shifted. The real question is whether that shift will translate into actual policy changes, or just better messaging.
"Of course, **candidates cannot control who fundraises for them**. But Craig benefited from hundreds of thousands in donations from AIPAC’s network before appearing to disavow them this year—after AIPAC proved to be an election liability in two major races with progressive challengers. AIPAC and other special interest groups are not required to report the bundling they do, meaning that PACs are able to come in behind candidates without direct spending, which has to be reported."
The emphasis added is my own. I highlight the text because electoral politics have become outright diabolical - I could see a strategy emerge in which AIPAC or other toxic groups **purposely** "fund" opposition candidates to draw down progressive support, or inject uncertainty into a particular campaign.
To be clear, I don't believe this is the case in this instance. Just looking forward.
Usually people didn't fundraise for people when they disagree with their policies.
So you DO actually control who fundraises for you, by what you stand for.
AIPAC gives money to politicians they vote to give billions of US taxpayer money and weapons to
Israel. Israel sure gets a real good deal for an AIPAC buck. I thought Israel was a foreign country and isn't there some law against that?
Thank you for this report.
Rather than feeling hopeless we can do something. We can vow to never vote for another candidate who takes money from Israel or who gives money to an Israel that violates international law. We can demand that no dual citizen be allowed to work for or with the U.S. government.
I find it fascinating that one of those proposing the non-dual citizens, is Randy Fine. It's kind of terrifying to know one might support legislation proposed by Fine, but in this case, he may have a point, and at least one fellow, Florida, Republican Congressperson will have to make a hard choice.
AIPAC channeled $6.5M to install Maxine Dexter as my US Representative (OR CD03) in 2024.
Sadly, sadly, sadly, Oregon Dems are circling their wagons around this Greater Israel, pro-genocide politician.
Read more about AIPAC and Dexter here:
https://meyerja.substack.com/p/three-aipac-spigots
Finally.
They can "run" but they cannot hide! Truth to Power.
I got emails from her campaign. I don’t live in Minnesota. I checked her record and immediately unsubscribed.
It is important for people to know whether candidates for elected office and elected officials are accepting PAC money. The fact voters know which candidates have taken PAC money means there is some transparency, although significant dark money undermines transparency. Many if not most American voters are tired of elected officials who serve the interests of PAC paymasters over public interests. If Craig's acceptance of AIPAC money is bad for her brand, so be it. Craig chose to accept the money and some voters question whether, if elected, she will serve the public or her PAC paymasters.
Knowing about PAC money isn't enough. There is something called Donor directed funds. Numerous donors make individual donations that are directed by some organization, and somehow or other, the candidate knows who directed those 'individual' contributions.
AIPAC simply accomplishes this through shills, straw donors and satellite PACs.
Glenn Greenwald supports the Citizens United decision because of the 1st amendment, the other reason not to bother opposing CU is futility; as rich people will always get their money to their desired destination.
Non-oligarchs simply have to get off their ass*s. No short cut. Try forming 3rd parties perhaps.
Greenwald has become a bit of a crank.
Glenn is consistent in his support of the first amendment. I'm not sure I'd call it cranky, but it must be annoying for some. Citizens United was a disaster for democracy, and working towards that Constitutional amendment that would overturn it is a good thing to do. There are numerous groups doing just that. Federal funding of elections would be good as well. Bringing back the fairness doctrine, limiting the number of media any one company could own, as used to be, is another.
Thanks for reading my post.
I have reluctantly come around to Glenn's position on the Buckley v. Valeo line, including Citizens United. I know its trite to say, "it's complicated," but it really IS complicated. Having the government referee expenditures related to speech leads to the same place as refereeing speech itself, as the government is always happy to do.
There is no substitute for getting off one's a** and getting in the streets or online or wherever to be heard.
Its kinda like gerrymandering, every party does it, and only the losers complain.
For a more libertarian kind of view, read Justice Scalia's dissent in Rutan v. Republican Party.