By Ali Zeraatpisheh

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is far more than a lobbying organization advocating closer US-Israeli ties. It is a political force working to shape Washington’s approach to the Tel Aviv regime, not only by lobbying lawmakers on military and diplomatic policy, but also by mobilizing donors and deploying political spending to support candidates aligned with its agenda and challenge those who oppose it.

AIPAC describes itself as bipartisan and claims a membership of more than 6.5 million. Yet the central question is not simply where its money comes from, but how its political machinery can influence elected officials, shape electoral incentives, and narrow the space for dissent over unconditional US support for the Israeli regime.

That influence extends well beyond traditional lobbying. AIPAC operates through a broader political network that includes AIPAC PAC, which contributes directly to federal candidates, and the United Democracy Project (UDP), an affiliated super PAC capable of spending unlimited sums on independent political campaigns.

Established in December 2021, AIPAC PAC collects donations from individual American donors and contributes directly to congressional candidates. Federal law places limits on how much a PAC can give to each candidate, making direct contributions only one part of AIPAC’s wider political strategy. The organization also encourages its supporters to donate directly to candidates who share its policy priorities regarding the Israeli regime.

The United Democracy Project, established in January 2022, provides a far larger potential channel for electoral spending. Unlike AIPAC PAC, a super PAC cannot contribute directly to candidates or coordinate its spending with their campaigns. It can, however, raise and spend unlimited sums on independent political advertising supporting favored candidates or opposing their rivals.

The distinction is consequential. AIPAC PAC’s direct contribution to a candidate may be modest compared with the millions of dollars a super PAC can spend shaping the same electoral contest. That spending can amplify a candidate’s message, undermine an opponent, and make positions on Israel a significant factor in a congressional race.

The issue is not merely that an advocacy organization seeks to advance its preferred foreign policy. The deeper issue is whether the scale and structure of its electoral spending make elected officials more responsive to the priorities of a well-funded advocacy network than to the full range of views held by their constituents.

When political support and opposition carry such substantial financial weight, the consequences extend beyond individual races to the boundaries of debate over American foreign policy.

Which candidates have received support from AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups?

AIPAC’s political fundraising network has reached hundreds of congressional candidates across both major parties ahead of the November midterm elections in the US.

According to ChamberLight’s analysis of federal election filings, 364 candidates received money through AIPAC PAC during the 2025-26 election cycle, with approximately $53.3 million distributed through the committee by October 14, 2026.

Among Republican recipients, Senator Susan Collins of Maine received approximately $3.1 million in bundled donations and $10,000 directly from AIPAC PAC.

Senator Thomas Cotton of Arkansas received about $1.1 million in bundled donations, while Senator John Cornyn of Texas received approximately $1.1 million, including $7,000 directly from the PAC.

Senator Daniel Sullivan of Alaska received around $845,000 in bundled donations and $5,000 directly, while Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina received approximately $542,000 in bundled donations and $2,000 directly before his recent death.

Other Republican recipients included Representative Michael Lawler of New York, who received approximately $802,000 in bundled donations and $10,000 directly from the PAC; Senator James Risch of Idaho, who received about $557,000 in bundled donations; and Senator Jon Husted of Ohio, who received approximately $632,000 in bundled donations.

Representative Juan Ciscomani of Arizona received about $620,000 in bundled donations, while Representative Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida received approximately $542,000.

Among Democratic recipients, Representative Wesley Bell of Missouri received approximately $2.30 million in bundled donations and $15,000 directly from AIPAC PAC.

Representative Jared Moskowitz of Florida received about $842,000 in bundled donations and $10,000 directly, while Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida received approximately $837,000 in bundled donations and $10,000 directly.

Representative Ritchie Torres of New York received about $845,000 in bundled donations and $10,000 directly, while Representative Gregory Landsman of Ohio received approximately $767,000 in bundled donations.

Other Democratic recipients included Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who received about $697,000 in bundled donations; Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who received approximately $667,000; and Representative Bradley Sherman of California, who received about $662,000.

Representative Peter Aguilar of California received approximately $596,000, while Representative Donald Davis of North Carolina received about $544,000.

Direct contributions and bundled donations, however, represent only one part of the network’s financial reach.

The UDP has spent tens of millions of dollars on independent political expenditures, including advertisements supporting candidates and campaigns opposing their rivals.

By October 14, UDP’s independent advertising spending for and against candidates during the 2025–26 cycle had reached approximately $53.9 million, according to ChamberLight’s analysis of federal filings.

Among Democratic candidates, UDP reported spending approximately $10.5 million supporting Representative Haley Stevens in Michigan’s Senate primary, $5.73 million supporting Adrian Boafo in Maryland, and nearly $4.97 million supporting Melissa Conyears-Ervin in Illinois.

It also spent about $826,000 supporting Melissa Hernandez in California and approximately $686,000 supporting Wesley Bell in Missouri.

On the Republican side, the tracker recorded approximately $579,000 in support of Edward Gallrein in Kentucky.

Michigan’s Senate race has become a particularly contentious example of the influence of outside political spending. During the Democratic primary, AIPAC-affiliated groups spent more than $30 million supporting Haley Stevens, a strong supporter of Israel, and opposing Abdul El-Sayed, a critic of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Stevens lost the primary to El-Sayed, making the contest a major setback for the network’s effort to defeat a prominent critic of US Israeli policy. The financial intervention continued into the general election, in which El-Sayed is facing Republican candidate Michael Rogers.

According to The Washington Post, UDP directed approximately $9 million to a group supporting Rogers after the October 14 deadline for pre-election disclosure, meaning the transfer would not appear in filings available by that deadline.

How do candidates who receive AIPAC contributions support Israel?

Congressional votes on weapons sales provide concrete evidence of how US lawmakers respond to Israel’s genocidal wars and how their positions compare with the priorities of AIPAC.

In 2025 and 2026, lawmakers repeatedly voted on proposals to block arms transfers to the Israeli regime, revealing divisions within the Democratic Party and continued Republican opposition to restrictions.

On July 30, 2025, the Senate rejected two resolutions introduced by Senator Bernard Sanders to block weapons sales to Israel. S.J.Res. 34, which targeted a sale of 1,000-pound bombs and guidance kits, failed to advance by 24 votes to 73.

S.J.Res. 41, which sought to block the sale of 20,000 rifles, was rejected by 27 votes to 70. Both measures sought to prevent specific arms transfers rather than terminate all US military assistance to the Tel Aviv regime.

The votes showed that opposition to restricting weapons sales extended beyond Republicans. On S.J.Res. 34, Democratic Senators Michael Bennet, Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, Maria Cantwell, Christopher Coons, Catherine Cortez Masto, John Fetterman, Kirsten Gillibrand, Maggie Hassan, John Hickenlooper, Jon Ossoff, Alex Padilla, Gary Peters, Jack Reed, Jacky Rosen, Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, Mark Warner, Sheldon Whitehouse and Ron Wyden voted against advancing the resolution.

On S.J.Res. 41, Christopher Van Hollen also voted against advancing the measure. The roll calls offer a specific record against which lawmakers’ public positions and campaign support can be examined.

On April 15, 2026, the Senate considered two further resolutions introduced by Bernard Sanders, with Senators Jeffrey Merkley and Peter Welch as cosponsors.

S.J.Res. 137 sought to block a proposed sale of Caterpillar D9 bulldozers to Israel; the motion to advance it failed by 40 votes to 59.

S.J.Res. 138 targeted a sale of 12,000 general-purpose 1,000-pound bombs and related support services, and failed by 36 votes to 63.

The proposals reflected concerns about the use of US-supplied equipment in Gaza and the West Bank, while opponents argued that restricting arms sales would undermine Israel’s so-called security.

The House considered a broader proposal on July 15, 2026. Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky introduced an amendment to H.R. 8595, the State Department appropriations bill that would have prohibited its funds from being used for Israel and cut $3.3 billion from the Foreign Military Financing account.

The amendment failed by 104 votes to 314. It received support from 103 Democrats and one Republican, while 98 Democrats and 215 Republicans voted against it.

The vote exposed a substantial Democratic split between lawmakers seeking to end military assistance and those unwilling to support a complete cutoff.

AIPAC’s policy priorities provide a further point of comparison. The organization has publicly supported continued US military assistance and joint missile-defense programmes with Israel, while campaigning for lawmakers who maintain the US-Israel relationship.

Why is AIPAC changing tactics to preserve its political influence?

On October 21, 2026, AIPAC announced that it would stop endorsing federal candidates and making direct campaign contributions through AIPAC PAC, reversing a strategy it adopted ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

The organization said it would instead concentrate on mobilizing individual donors, organizing contributions and using new fundraising tools, while continuing to support candidates who advance the US-Israel relationship. The UDP will continue operating as before.

The reversal followed mounting resistance to AIPAC’s involvement in elections, particularly in Democratic primaries where candidates have faced criticism for accepting its support.

Some lawmakers and challengers have made rejecting AIPAC money a campaign issue, while opposition to Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza has widened divisions within the Democratic Party.

AIPAC itself described the 2026 election cycle as one of the most challenging political environments it had faced in recent memory.

The organization’s recent record helps explain why it is reassessing its approach. As mentioned above, in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, UDP spent more than $30 million supporting Representative Haley Stevens and opposing Abdul El-Sayed, who denounced Israel’s war in Gaza.

Stevens lost the primary to El-Sayed despite the substantial outside spending. The result demonstrated that large-scale political expenditure does not guarantee victory and that association with AIPAC can itself become a contested issue in a campaign.

AIPAC’s new strategy does not mean that its financial involvement in elections is ending. The organization said its members had contributed more than $90 million directly to candidates during the 2026 cycle, and it plans to increase such organized individual giving

Unlike a contribution from a political action committee, a donation made by an individual is reported under that donor’s name, even when the donor was encouraged or organized to contribute through AIPAC’s network.

The change therefore shifts the formal channel through which political support is organized rather than ending the network’s fundraising activity.

The continued operation of UDP is especially significant. A super PAC can raise and spend unlimited sums on independent political communications supporting or opposing candidates, provided its expenditures are not coordinated with their campaigns.

AIPAC’s decision to retain this vehicle means it can continue investing heavily in congressional races even after ending its own PAC’s candidate endorsements and direct contributions.

The Michigan Senate general election offered an immediate example of that continuing involvement. On October 22, The Washington Post reported that approximately $9 million had been directed through UDP to a group supporting Republican candidate Michael Rogers against El-Sayed.

The case illustrates how the organization’s influence can persist through outside spending even as it changes its public-facing approach to endorsements and direct contributions.

The strategy shift has drawn competing interpretations. Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the pro-Israel organization J Street, argued that retaining the super PAC while abandoning AIPAC PAC would leave intact the large-scale outside spending that has made the organization controversial.

AIPAC, meanwhile, has maintained that its mission remains unchanged and that organizing individual donors and using new fundraising tools will make its political operation more effective.

These competing assessments reflect the central question raised by the change: whether altering the route through which political support is delivered will reduce criticism or simply preserve the same influence through different mechanisms.

AIPAC’s future influence will depend on more than its formal endorsement policy. Its donor network, lobbying operation, relationships with lawmakers and ability to fund independent advertising remain important sources of political reach.

At the same time, candidates’ growing willingness to reject its support, disputes over military aid to Israel and the electoral consequences of association with the organization may complicate its work, particularly in Democratic contests.