<\/p>\n
The pro-Israel lobby<\/span> is confronting a growing problem. <\/p>\n The American Israel Public Affairs Committee waged a proud and public campaign to assert its dominance last cycle \u2014 sinking more than $100 million<\/a> into the 2024 elections to oust critics of Israel from Congress. AIPAC spent more on elections that cycle than any other individual single-issue interest group; celebrated its super PAC, United Democracy Project, as \u201cone of the largest bipartisan super PACs in America<\/a>\u201d; and took credit for endorsing 361 pro-Israel candidates who prevailed in hundreds of races.<\/p>\n That success met with public disgust<\/a> with Israel\u2019s genocide in Gaza and drove a massive backlash, fueling a growing movement to eradicate AIPAC\u2019s influence <\/a>and propel insurgent candidates to Congress on pledges to refuse the pro-Israel lobby\u2019s support. Now, as the 2026 midterms <\/a>approach, AIPAC and its preferred candidates have pulled back from the aggressive electoral strategy they pursued last time.<\/p>\n None of this is to say that AIPAC is planning to let its influence slip away. While the group has not yet publicly endorsed any new candidates this cycle, there\u2019s still time, and it\u2019s working behind closed doors to boost its preferred candidates\u2019 campaigns. Earlier this month, for example, AIPAC\u2019s board president held a fundraiser for an Illinois House candidate<\/a> who has said publicly that she isn\u2019t seeking the group\u2019s endorsement. In another district in the same state, AIPAC donors rallied around a real estate mogul\u2019s<\/a> congressional campaign.<\/p>\n The moves represent the latest in a series of strategic adaptations AIPAC has made in recent years while navigating a shifting political landscape on issues related to Israel. <\/p>\n \u201cThey are fully aware their brand is in the toilet,\u201d said former Rep. Marie Newman, D-Ill., whom pro-Israel<\/a> donors helped oust in 2022<\/a>.<\/p>\n By this time last cycle, AIPAC had already endorsed<\/a> most of its slate. But with a growing field of candidates running on rejecting AIPAC money and attacking those who take it, the group is returning to a quieter strategy that it used for years to build its influence.<\/p>\n \u201cAIPAC is thought of toxically across the nation,\u201d Newman said. \u201cOn doors, when you knock and go to canvasses and go to speaking engagements here, standard rank-and-file centrist Dems are like, \u2018No, no more AIPAC and no more corporate PACs.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Merely rejecting AIPAC money will not be enough to serve as the new standard for progressive candidates for long, said Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. <\/p>\n Swearing off the group\u2019s cash \u201cdoesn\u2019t mean anything,\u201d on its own, Friedman said. \u201cWhat is going to matter is where candidates, or incumbents who are trying to return to office, where they stand on issues. As it becomes clear that AIPAC is going to work around the \u2018people don\u2019t want to take our money\u2019 and find other ways to support candidates, it\u2019s really going to be a question of, where do people stand on what are in some ways litmus-test issues for AIPAC?\u201d<\/p>\n California Gov. Gavin Newsom appears to have picked up on the anti-AIPAC trend. During a press tour as rumors swirl about a potential run for president, Newsom said<\/a> earlier this month that he won\u2019t take money from the group. In October, Newsom told the podcast Higher Learning<\/a>, \u201cI haven\u2019t thought about AIPAC in \u2014 it\u2019s interesting, you\u2019re like the first to bring up AIPAC in years.\u201d<\/p>\n Despite Newsom\u2019s statements, his record on Israel policy leaves questions about how far he\u2019d go to ally himself with the Palestinian cause. He\u2019s celebrated accolades from far-right pro-Israel groups like the Anti-Defamation League<\/a>, and his last two public statements on anniversaries of the October 7 attacks did not mention Palestinians killed. Newsom did not call for a ceasefire in Gaza until March 2024<\/a>, after both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris did so<\/a>.<\/p>\n While some pro-Palestine advocates applauded Newsom<\/a> for vetoing an online hate speech bill they said would have targeted politically protected speech, Newsom did not cite those concerns<\/a> as part of his decision. California\u2019s powerful tech industry<\/a> had also hoped he would reject the bill. <\/p>\n Newsom is also facing criticism<\/a> over a controversial bill he signed into law in October to address antisemitism in California schools, which a coalition<\/a> of teachers associations, civil rights organizations, and interfaith groups argue would censor<\/a> legitimate criticism of Israel and pro-Palestine voices. Opponents are suing to stop the law<\/a> from going into effect on January 1.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n