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.
"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.
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.
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 to available to the highest bidder. Please look at how a journalist in West Memphis ends up in HR at St Judes Medical and a leader at the St Paul Chamber of Commerce. She has Fetterman and Sinema written all over her.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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 to available to the highest bidder. Please look at how a journalist in West Memphis ends up in HR at St Judes Medical and a leader at the St Paul Chamber of Commerce. She has Fetterman and Sinema written all over her.
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
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?
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.