As Aipac Spending Surges, It Faces A Big Primary Test

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has been at the center of clashes between Democrats this spring primary season. The conflict is coming to a head Tuesday.

AIPAC has plowed $5.7 million into a Maryland primary to replace retiring Rep. Steny Hoyer, a longtime ally of the pro-Israel lobbying group — boosting his preferred successor, state Del. Adrian Boafo, and sparking fierce criticism from several rival candidates and Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a potential 2028 presidential contender.

The group has also become a lightning rod in a trio of congressional primaries in New York City, where progressive insurgents are trying to sink two Israel-friendly incumbents and seize an open seat — and where mystery outside spending has led to accusations that the group is secretly involved.

The uproar has cemented AIPAC’s bogeyman status within a party confronting a rising backlash to Israel and to dark money influence in its politics. And it has teed up the contests in Maryland and New York as major indicators of how much influence the powerful pro-Israel lobby still wields in an increasingly polarized political environment.

“There’s no doubt this year has reached new levels,” Chris Coffey, a former adviser to past New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said of the backlash to AIPAC. “It’s certainly unprecedented. It’s an issue in all of these races,” the Tusk Strategies chief, who is not involved in the primaries, added.

AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project, has shelled out more than $38 million so far this cycle through direct spending, shell PACs and donations to other groups, according to a POLITICO analysis of FEC filings. That means the PAC has already surpassed the $26 million it spent during the 2022 election and is likely on track to exceed the $46.3 million it uncorked during 2024.

“Pro-Israel candidates won in the last two cycles, so now the fringe left is trying to intimidate Democratic candidates by demonizing AIPAC,” said Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for United Democracy Project. “We are here to stay. We’re going to support pro-Israel, progressive Democrats this cycle, next cycle and in the future.”

AIPAC has become a stand-in for rising anti-Israel sentiment among Democrats, sparking a fierce debate within the party over the powerful lobby’s role in elections and how to approach the once-safe politics of supporting the longtime U.S. ally.

Some Jewish Democrats and their allies have warned that some attacks on AIPAC are antisemitic — and risk alienating Jewish and pro-Israel voters who normally lean Democratic. Dorton called it an “insidious effort to silence pro-Israel Democratic voters in the primary process.”

Progressives, meanwhile, have accused AIPAC of attempting to stifle criticism of Israel by conflating it with antisemitism. And rival pro-Israel groups have called its policies out-of-step with the electorate.

An April POLITICO Poll found that a 37 percent plurality of voters who backed Kamala Harris in 2024 oppose AIPAC’s attempts to influence elections — more than double the percentage of those who support the lobbying arm’s efforts. Another 30 percent said they haven’t heard of the group.

That comes amid a broadly darkening mood among Democrats toward Israel: Nearly half of Harris voters believe Israel’s government has too much influence over U.S. foreign policy.

AIPAC has adapted to this reality. United Democracy Project has shielded more than 40 percent of the money it has spent across primaries in both parties so far for the 2026 cycle through pop-up and pass-through PACs, according to POLITICO’s analysis.

That strategy emerged as a flashpoint throughout the spring as AIPAC began intervening in a series of Democratic primaries. United Democracy Project unloaded $2 million to sink former Rep. Tom Malinowski, a pro-Israel Democrat who nevertheless would not support unconditional aid to Israel, in a New Jersey special election, resulting in a win for a progressive Israel critic that infuriating mainstream Democrats. Then, it spent $22 million on ads that didn’t mention Israel in a quartet of Illinois primaries largely through shell PACs that obscured its involvement — giving rise to the unending and sometimes unfounded accusations that the group is behind pop-up PACs proliferating in other races.

The issue is now flaring in New York City, home to the largest Jewish population in America. AIPAC’s successful effort to oust Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman two years ago and the stunning ascension last year of now-Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a sharp Israel critic, have caused a significant fracture in local Democrats’ once-steadfast support for Israel.

Mamdani compared AIPAC last week to “monsters” who “move millions in dark money to accomplish a single goal — to preserve their power.” New Jersey Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer accused him of “laundering antisemitism”: “Swap ‘AIPAC’ for ‘Jews’ and it’s the oldest antisemitic conspiracy theory in the books.”

Mamdani defended his remarks Monday.

“We're talking about a status quo where children are being killed on a daily basis,” Mamdani told reporters. “I'm speaking about an organization that has been supportive of the status quo, that has fought any attempt to actually deliver safety to people.”

It remains unclear whether United Democracy Project is spending in New York City.

State lawmaker Claire Valdez’s campaign accused AIPAC of bankrolling a super PAC, Real Fight NYC, that is propping up Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso for retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez’s seat. Morris Katz, a Valdez adviser and top strategist for Mamdani, wrote in a since-deleted X post that it’s “deeply dishonest” for progressives to “pretend that a new PAC just emerging now is anything other than an AIPAC shell.”

But Dorton said United Democracy Project had “absolutely no involvement” in Valdez’s race and called her campaign’s finger pointing “pure fiction.” Meanwhile, the American Federation of Teachers has said it is “a part of” the PAC in question, though the rest of its donors will not be revealed until after the primary. Reynoso, who like Valdez is progressive, has criticized AIPAC and vehemently denied receiving any money from the group.

Representatives for AIPAC have not publicly denied involvement in two other New York City races, however. BOLD America, a group supporting Hispanic candidates created by former Congressional Hispanic Caucus members, received $650,000 from United Democracy Project in May and is now spending big to boost pro-Israel Rep. Adriano Espaillat. Still, it’s unclear if that cash was explicitly used for the influx of attack ads against his opponent, democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier, as BOLD America is spending in other races across the country as well.

Meanwhile, several New York incumbents are among the many beneficiaries of bundling from AIPAC’s lobbying PAC. Rep. Dan Goldman and Espaillat have both received low six-figure sums from donors giving through the group this cycle. Avila Chevalier has gone after Espaillat over the $350,000 AIPAC has bundled for him over the years, and accused an outside group spending against her of being bankrolled by AIPAC. Former city Comptroller Brad Lander, who is challenging Goldman, has hammered the incumbent over his ties to the AIPAC.

Lander, who, like Goldman, is Jewish, has acknowledged there are a “whole set of tropes around Jews and money” and that rising antisemitism has unnerved him. But he has also accused AIPAC of “dividing Jews” by pushing them to support unconditional military aid to Israel.

“It doesn’t make Jews safer, it doesn’t make Israelis safer, it sure does not make Palestinians safer,” Lander said in a recent interview.

While the New York primaries stand as a major bellwether for the mood of the Democratic base, AIPAC faces a far more direct test of its staying power in Maryland. It has become the single biggest spender on the airwaves as it promotes Hoyer’s pick and former campaign staffer, Boafo, to succeed him.

The group’s involvement drew the ire of Boafo’s rivals, three of whom — Harry Dunn, Rushern Baker and Quincy Bareebe — took the unusual step of jointly denouncing the spending by United Democracy Project and a super PAC linked to the crypto industry that also dropped $5.5 million on the race. Van Hollen, who did not endorse in the contest, accused the groups of trying to buy the seat and Boafo of being a “dependable vote in support of their special interests.”

“For a long time, AIPAC has had a pretty free hand. They’re still a formidable force on Capitol Hill,” Van Hollen, who has ties to another pro-Israel PAC, J Street, said on a recent press call. But, he added, “AIPAC's position of providing unconditional American taxpayer support for the government of Israel is not a popular position.”

Boafo has called to strengthen the U.S.-Israel alliance but has also been critical of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And he’s said “big money has no place in politics.” His campaign declined further comment Monday. But Hoyer rode to his defense on the airwaves in the days after his rivals’ teamup, dismissing the “attacks” by calling Boafo a “man of deep integrity” in a United Democracy Project ad.

It hasn’t stopped Boafo's opponents from continuing to hammer the outside spending in the run-up to Tuesday.

“This is not about the issues of whether you’re supporting Israel or supporting cryptocurrency,” Dunn said in an interview Monday. “They just do not need to be spending the amount of money they do and basically influencing elections in the capacity they’re doing it.”