SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
donna edwards
No, It’s Not Antisemitic to Criticize Pro-Israel Money in US Politics
On every other issue, it is conventional wisdom that campaign contributions influence politicians. It is risible to pretend that only when it comes to Israel is that never the case.
Aug 02, 2023
Earlier this spring, the Biden Administration withdrew its nomination of James Cavallaro—a Yale law instructor—to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights after a tweet emerged in which Cavallaro accused the hawkishly pro-Israel U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, of being “Bought. Purchased. Controlled” by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.
According to watchdog group OpenSecrets, Rep. Jeffries’ single largest donor in the last election was Pro-Israel America ($213,450). Three of his top five contributors were pro-Israel groups, the others being NorPAC ($99,150), and AIPAC ($66,990). In aggregate, pro-Israel donations trailed only Wall Street contributions. On every other issue, it is conventional wisdom that campaign contributions influence politicians. It is risible to pretend that only when it comes to Israel is that never the case. Cavallaro was partaking in mundane political barbs when he mocked Jeffries for being a tool of an influential lobby.
To draw a connection between pro-Israel donations and the often slavish support for Israel exhibited by many American politicians is simply recognizing the obvious. AIPAC and the newly formed Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) know that money buys clout in politics. That’s why DMFI and the AIPAC-backed United Democracy Project super PAC were launched to arrest growing support for Palestinian human rights among liberal Democrats. Simply put, would donors part with millions of dollars if congressional policies on Israel were not subject to political pressure?
The fact that AIPAC’s PAC and the DMFI were launched to arrest growing support for Palestinian human rights underscores the importance both assign to pro-Israel campaign contributions.
Alas, nothing is ever so straightforward in American discussions on Israel. When Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) stated that U.S. congressional support for Israel was due to AIPAC’s “Benjamins,” she was roundly accused of antisemitism as if AIPAC’s lobbying clout did not influence Capitol Hill.
And that is where former pro-Palestinian congressional candidate Nina Turner found herself after DMFI spent just under $2 million to defeat Turner and help elect her pro-Israel opponent. (Much of DMFI’s money comes from Republican donors.) In her concession speech, Turner lambasted outside money (i.e. super PACs) as “evil money,” which in turn led the misnamed Anti-Defamation League to accuse Turner of “echo[ing] long-standing antisemitic tropes.” It is standard practice for pro-Israel lobbies to flex their influence but, at the same time, attempt to shield themselves from scrutiny by falsely accusing their detractors of playing on antisemitic tropes about Jews and power.
Political support for Israel is not solely about campaign contributions, as Zionist sentiments are genuinely held, especially among Evangelical Christians who form the backbone of the Republican Party. However, criticism of Israel in Congress declined in the 1980s as groups like AIPAC grew influential. Moreover, the fact that AIPAC’s PAC and the DMFI were launched to arrest growing support for Palestinian human rights underscores the importance both assign to pro-Israel campaign contributions.
And those contributions are significant. In the last midterm election, right-wing pro-Israel donors and super PACs spent tens of millions in campaign contributions to defeat candidates and politicians critical of Israel and prop up those in sync with their views. (Left-wing pro-Israel groups, such as J Street or Americans for Peace Now, make contributions but trail behind their right-wing counterparts.)
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) has made a name for himself as a vociferous “progressive” champion of Israel. OpenSecrets reports Torres’s biggest donor as AIPAC ($131,008). Torres and Jeffries are hardly unique in building campaign war chests with pro-Israel donations.
Contributions to candidates are only part of the story. Super PACs run their own TV and mailer campaigns. In the last election, United Democracy Project spent nearly $33 million.
Not surprisingly, AIPAC scored notable victories in the midterms, as reported by Open Secrets. United Democracy Project spent $4 million in opposition to five-time incumbent Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.). Edwards lost her primary to challenger Glenn Ivey, who received $1.7 million in support from the super PAC. In a post-election press release, AIPAC called Edwards a “detractor of the U.S.-Israel relationship who was heavily backed by some of the most vocal and persistent critics of the Jewish state.”
The super PAC also spent $4.2 million to help defeat Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.), a Jewish-American champion for Palestinian human rights. The United Democracy Project deployed more money in the primary than the combined campaign budgets of the former congressman and his opponent. The super PAC poured $2.4 million into North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District to successfully support Valerie Foushee against pro-Palestinian American Muslim Nida Allam. DMFI spent $6,240,441 in the last election targeting pro-Palestinian Democrats running for office or reelection. And NorPAC spent $1,916,071.
Witnessing an avalanche of pro-Israel money help sink a campaign, including those of incumbents, probably makes many aspiring and serving public officials think twice before criticizing Israel. It is not antisemitic to say so.
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Debate Framed for Chopping Safety Net, Lawmakers Denounce 'Measly' Social Security Increase
The 0.3 percent increase for 2017 is "woefully inadequate," said one expert.
Oct 19, 2016
As Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump prepare to go head-to-head for a debate set to cover so-called "entitlements," several U.S. lawmakers are denouncing what they say is a sorely insufficient increase in Social Security benefits for next year.
Described even in corporate media stories as "measly" and "tiny," Social Security's 2017 cost of living adjustment for the over 65 million Americans who rely on the benefits will be a 0.3 percent increase, the federal government announced Tuesday. For the average recipient, that will amount to an increase of less than $4 per month, the Associated Press notes.
The Washington Postreports, "The 0.3 percent boost is the smallest increase in history for cost-of-living adjustments, which have been in place since 1975."
Seventy-year-old Ed Cadwell of Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, said the adjustment will make people like him "fall further behind," adding, "I barely make it from month to month as it is."
Recipients like Cadwell saw no cost of living adjustment at all for 2016.
And this year's boost, according to Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) is "Simply NOT enough."
Nancy Altman, founding co-director of Social Security Works, similarly criticized the increase as "woefully inadequate."
"Seniors and Americans with disabilities are facing rising costs, particularly from prescription drugs and other medical expenses," she said in a statement.
Altman, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), says the way the cost-of-living adjustment is figured, using the Consumer Price Index from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, is flawed. Many organizations who seek to expand Social Security say the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E) would be a better measure.
Reacting to Tuesday's adjustment announcement, Sanders said, "Seniors and disabled veterans need more help than a few extra dollars in their monthly checks."
"At a time when senior poverty is going up and more than two-thirds of the elderly population rely on Social Security for more than half of their income, we must do everything we can to expand Social Security. Seniors and disabled veterans deserve a fair cost-of-living adjustment to keep up with the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs and health care. Unfortunately, the increase announced today doesn't come close to doing that," he said.
Also decrying the small increase was Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who tweeted, "For many Americans struggling to make ends meet, that offers little relief."
Warren, along with Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), called on Congress to pass the Seniors and Veterans Emergency (SAVE) Benefits Act, which would increase benefits.
A statement from Baldwin's office explains that the act would give an "emergency payment equal to 3.9 percent of the average annual Social Security benefit, about $581--the same percentage raise that top CEOs received last year."
The cost for that payment come from "closing a tax loophole allowing corporations to write off executive bonuses as a business expense for 'performance pay'," the statement continues.
As for the presidential candidates' "starkly different views of the program," that's likely to come up Wednesday evening for the third and last presidential debate of 2016.
That's because "entitlement and debt" is among the six topics chosen by debate moderator Chris Wallace.
"While this has a clear meaning to policy wonks," argues economist Dean Baker, "it is likely that most viewers won't immediately know that 'entitlements' means the Social Security and Medicare their parents receive. It's a lot easier for politicians to talk about cutting wasteful 'entitlements' than taking away seniors' Social Security and Medicare."
According to Baker, "Those organizing the debate want to see Social Security and Medicare cut, so they are framing the topic in a way that cuts to these programs will seem like the only reasonable answer."
Altman offered a similar take, stating, "This biased framing falsely implies that Social Security contributes to the debt, and therefore needs to be cut. In fact, as President Ronald Reagan famously said, Social Security does not add a penny to the debt."
"In light of the nation's looming retirement income crisis and the erosion of benefits resulting from minuscule cost of living increases, Social Security should be expanded, not cut," she continued. "Unfortunately, Chris Wallace will be asking the wrong question tonight."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Women and Doctors in Danger, House GOP Called to End 'Witch Hunt'
'We disgrace ourselves by allowing this misconduct to continue,' 178 House Democrats say in letter to Speaker Paul Ryan
May 24, 2016
Backed by key women's health and civil liberties groups, 178 House Democrats on Tuesday sent a letter to Republican Speaker Paul Ryan demanding he disband an anti-choice investigative panel that has been issuing subpoenas to abortion providers and medical researchers around the country.
The so-called "Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives" was created to look into fetal tissue research in the wake of last summer's video smear campaign by anti-abortion activists that purported to show Planned Parenthood officials admitting to selling fetal body parts. In January, a grand jury empaneled to investigate those charges indicted the anti-abortion activists for fraud instead.
"This is one more example of the anti-choice GOP's reckless disregard for safety of women and the priorities of most Americans."
--Ilyse Hogue, NARAL Pro-Choice America
Women's health and academic freedom advocates have long warned that the panel could have a chilling effect on both the provision of healthcare and university research.
But the panel's "pattern of reckless disregard" has only escalated, according to House Democrats, with Republican members sending 36 subpoenas to researchers and healthcare providers, including a physician who was recently identified by name.
"From the beginning, Chair Marsha Blackburn has used her unilateral subpoena power to intimidate scientific researchers, doctors, clinics, health care providers, universities, and other entities," reads the letter, which asks Ryan to respond in writing no later than June 6, 2016.
"On May 11, 2016, the majority reached a new low when it posted a press release identifying a doctor and his clinic by name," the letter continues. "The press release's hyperbolic rhetoric and misleading allegations pose a real danger to the doctor, the staff at the clinic, and the patients of the named clinic. These recent steps are completely outside the bounds of acceptable Congressional behavior. We disgrace ourselves by allowing this misconduct to continue."
Indeed, the signatories--who include Reps. Keith Ellison (Minn.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), Eddie Bernice Johnson (Tx.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), and Maxine Waters (Calif.)--declare:
The most recent subpoenas are only the latest in a series of aggressive tactics that constitute a virtually unprecedented abuse of Congressional power, perhaps only matched by the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s. To this day, the Panel still lacks credible evidence to support its case that any federal laws were broken. Yet the Chair and majority staff continue to harass individuals, researchers, clinics, and health care facilities, issuing a total of 36 subpoenas so far, often without reaching out to the subject of the subpoena to ask for voluntary compliance first or without giving subjects sufficient time to comply. Congress simply has no business "prosecuting" these unfounded allegations.
The danger posed by the Panel is real and serious. There is a long and undeniable history of violence against women's health care clinics, physicians, and patients. As recently as November 27, 2015, a gunman murdered three people and injured nine others at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, repeating the "baby parts" rhetoric pushed by the very members of Congress leading this investigation. Despite this horrific event, the same inflammatory language has been used repeatedly during Panel hearings, in communications with the press, and in other documents. The majority has also refused to take necessary steps to protect the names and privacy of those subject to the investigation. Indeed, some names and targets have already been publicly disclosed. We are deeply disappointed by the majority's decision to continue down this road despite these well-known risks.
In a statement on Tuesday, the ACLU expressed support for the Democrats' call.
"By issuing broad and baseless subpoenas," said Louise Melling, the ACLU's deputy legal director, "the Select Investigative Panel is not only wasting time and taxpayer money, but also violating the civil liberties of health care providers, medical researchers, and staff. This panel's actions are clearly meant to harass and intimidate healthcare providers to prevent them from providing constitutionally protected care women need."
And there are even more insidious goals in play, said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
"By promoting falsehoods in order to close clinics, the Select Panel has been endangering women, students, researchers, and health care providers since it was formed," Hogue said in a statement on Tuesday. "House Democrats are right to call on Speaker Ryan to disband this committee and put a stop to its taxpayer-funded witch hunt."
The panel and its actions, she said, offer "one more example of the anti-choice GOP's reckless disregard for safety of women and the priorities of most Americans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular