<\/p>\n
The social media<\/span> outfit TrackAIPAC\u2019s signature anti-endorsement cards have become a fixture of the 2026 midterms. The ubiquitous graphics show a disapproved candidate\u2019s face in grayscale over a smoky red backdrop. To the right, a number denoting their pro-Israel funding glows.<\/p>\n Controversially, not all of that money comes from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s as broad as possible, and that\u2019s by design,\u201d TrackAIPAC co-founder Casey Kennedy told The Intercept. Instead of just AIPAC, the group tracks spending from across the pro-Israel lobby. \u201cWe want to provide the most encapsulating picture that we can of who\u2019s giving to the lobby and where they\u2019re giving to,\u201d Kennedy said.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n TrackAIPAC started in 2024 as a scrappy bulwark to the powerful, conservative pro-Israel lobbying group for which it is named. Amid TrackAIPAC\u2019s rise, U.S. voters\u2019 support for Israel plummeted to historic lows<\/a> as horrified Americans watched their government support genocide in Gaza, and AIPAC, once an indispensable ally for most federal politicians, transformed into an electoral liability.\u00a0<\/p>\n Depending on whom you ask, TrackAIPAC is a hero for pushing pro-Israel spending into the forefront of voters\u2019 minds, a scourge peddling antisemitic tropes, or a well-intentioned activist group with an imperfect, ever-evolving model. An advocacy group called Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption launched in May 2024 and soon merged with TrackAIPAC, giving the lobby watchers the power to endorse and fund candidates. TrackAIPAC\u2019s graphics are easily digestible and often go viral, lending the group political weight in an era when online audiences want to consume information in as little time and with as little brainpower as possible \u2014 and turning its signature red card into a political scarlet letter.<\/p>\n TrackAIPAC\u2019s growing influence has set off a debate over its messaging and methodology, part of a broader conversation about outside spending in politics refracted through the lens of Israel. This was especially felt in Illinois\u2019 recent primary elections, where AIPAC funneled its financial contributions through front PACs, or its major donors gave as individuals<\/a>. AIPAC\u2019s more elusive strategy proves the necessity of lumping several kinds of pro-Israel money together, TrackAIPAC allies say, giving the group the responsibility of acting as an analyst rather than a conduit of information.<\/p>\n \u201cThe work tracker accounts do is important because AIPAC and other dark money lobbies are intentionally very difficult to track,\u201d said Morriah Kaplan, executive director of the progressive Jewish-led Palestinian solidarity organization IfNotNow. Calling AIPAC\u2019s tactics \u201cextremely antidemocratic,\u201d she noted that major donors can have a range of political aims, favoring tech giants, weapons manufacturers, and fossil fuels in tandem with supporting Israel.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWithout understanding how TrackAIPAC defines \u2018pro-Israel,\u2019\u201d Kaplan said, \u201cit\u2019s not as valuable a tool for transparency as it could be.\u201d<\/p>\n In the 9th district of Illinois, TrackAIPAC\u2019s broad approach drew controversy when it deployed a red graphic not just for state Sen. Laura Fine, the Congressional candidate AIPAC\u2019s funders and front groups supported<\/a>, but also for Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, who campaigned and won as a progressive, said he would support<\/a> the Block the Bombs Act, and was a main target of AIPAC-funded attack ads.<\/p>\n When TrackAIPAC posted a red graphic<\/a> for Biss, the group pointed to his refusal to call Israel\u2019s actions a genocide, his opposition to the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement, his support for U.S. funding for Israel\u2019s Iron Dome, and $460,357 \u201cspent by the pro-Israel lobby groups and their donors.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWithout understanding how TrackAIPAC defines \u2018pro-Israel,\u2019 it\u2019s not as valuable a tool for transparency as it could be.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n That money mostly came from J Street<\/a>, which bills itself as a liberal alternative for Zionist American Jews who want to counter AIPAC\u2019s hardline influence. In recent years, the group has supported halting some weapons<\/a> transfers to Israel and opposed Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. But J Street was slow to label Israel\u2019s assault on Gaza a genocide \u2014 its president Jeremy Ben-Ami came around to the term in August<\/a>\u2014 and it opposed<\/a> initial calls for a ceasefire.\u00a0<\/p>\n Tali deGroot, J Street\u2019s vice president of political and digital strategy, was frustrated by her group\u2019s conflation with AIPAC, calling TrackAIPAC \u201cintellectually dishonest\u201d for the distance between its name and its methodology. TrackAIPAC does label the specific sources of pro-Israel funding that make up its sums on its website, along with a list<\/a> of organizations it tracks in addition to AIPAC, but they seldom appear on the red cards that circulate on social media. Some critics have labeled this blurring of lines sloppy or confusing, while others on the left<\/a> and right<\/a> have accused the group of antisemitism<\/a> over its generalized \u201cpro-Israel\u201d language.<\/p>\n \u201cI think the candidates and members should be held to account for taking AIPAC support,\u201d deGroot said, \u201cbut the way that [TrackAIPAC] is going about it is only doing so much harm.\u201d<\/p>\n\n