Has AIPAC Invested Any Substantial Money in GOP Primaries?

Yesterday was a big primary day, and there are a lot of storylines being bandied about. One close to my neck of the political woods has been AIPAC's heavy investments in Democratic primaries attacking candidates it perceives as insufficiently pro-Israel. Their success rate was mixed -- two AIPAC-backed Democrats, Valerie Foushee and Don Davis, won in North Carolina, but in Pennsylvania Summer Lee looks to have narrowly defeated Steve Irwin for the Democratic nomination in a Pittsburgh-area seat where AIPAC dumped $2.7 million in on Irwin's behalf (AIPAC spent over $2 million on each of the North Carolina races).

Seven million dollars is quite a bit of cash on three Democratic primaries (in another race, AIPAC has backed Rep. Henry Cuellar in his primary run-off against Jessica Cisneros to the tune of $1.2 million). My question is whether there are any GOP races where AIPAC has spent equivalent sums seeking to ensure that its preferred candidate wins (or -- perhaps more saliently -- that a dispreferred candidate does not)?

I haven't heard of such expenditures, though I won't pretend I'm such an eagle eye that I'd necessarily spot them if they'd occurred -- that's why I'm asking! Still, my guess is that the answer is no, they haven't (this disclosure also suggests that AIPAC's United Democracy Project super PAC has only spent money on Democratic races). And the reason for my guess is that there aren't any credible Republican candidates whose positions AIPAC considers unacceptable on Israel. I could dimly imagine that they might have gone in against Thomas Massie, whom they've sparred with in the past over Iron Dome funding, but Massie cruised to victory last night with 75% of the vote.

What we're really seeing -- and this isn't a shocking revelation -- is that AIPAC has no meaningful "right-wing" boundary to what it considers acceptably pro-Israel. Absent David Duke style neo-Nazi anti-Zionism -- which actually is starting to nibble into the conservative mainstream but hasn't yet manifested on any national stage to my knowledge -- it is fine with literally any GOP position on Israel, no matter how conservative. One-stateism, pro-apartheid, pro-settlement -- nothing is off-limits to AIPAC. It may pay lip service to supporting a "two-state solution", but when it comes to things that actually get them off the couch and spending money, all the action occurs on the Democratic side of the aisle.

AIPAC Starts PACking

The big money story in politics this week, literally, is that the famed pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC is starting a PAC. If that doesn't seem like much of a story, AIPAC has, for its entire existence, not actually been formally involved in donating to political candidates. It's one of the reasons why the notion that it "bought" Congress is so offensive. While AIPAC certainly was valuable in introducing members of Congress to prospective donors, the new AIPAC PAC (yes, that's the name) will be the first time the organization itself donates directly.

Yet this is a fraught time for AIPAC to join the donation game. AIPAC's political engagement strategy for as long as I've remembered has been characterized by one major rule: talk to everyone. It wants a pleasant relationship with as many members of Congress as possible. To that end, it has not -- contra some assumptions -- been all that aggressive in enforcing a hard party line on Israel. This has frustrated Republicans who think AIPAC should serve as a right-wing attack dog. But it also has provided cover for AIPAC in not speaking out on plenty of right-wing heresies too.

All of this works primarily because, what the exception of its big conference bash, most of what AIPAC does is quiet and private -- the slow, boring, but fruitful work of building relationships whenever and wherever it can. And I can't help but think that right now is a very difficult model to adjust to making donations, where AIPAC will be quite publicly making some tough choices and will unavoidably have to get loud on them.

The JTA article on the AIPAC PAC suggests that it is actually meant to be a vehicle for AIPAC to show more support for Democrats it likes, to counter allegations that it has gotten too snuggly with the GOP. I support the ambition, but I think this is a terrible way to get there. The more obvious way for AIPAC to restore diminished luster amongst Democrats would be to actually, you know, show its teeth in supporting the elements of Israel policy that Democrats actually like, such as a two-state solution. If money is their strategy for regaining Democratic warm-feeling, that suggests they're looking for a route that doesn't involve them actually shifting policy in any way, and that's a strategy with a very limited shelf life.

And even if we take the money front in isolation, I think it's a tactic doomed to fail. Let's assume that AIPAC will be less heavy-handed and self-defeating in its political interventions than DMFI, because, well, who couldn't be? (Answer: possibly AIPAC) Even still, AIPAC was already doing a perfectly serviceable job of introducing new Democratic politicians to potential donors; it was fine in the role of intermediary. Going in directly and, well, one needn't overstate the toxicity of the AIPAC brand amongst Democrats to say that it certainly is a ripe target for attack in some wings of the Democratic coalition. We already see plenty of calls for Democrats to skip AIPAC's conference due to its right-wing priorities. A world in which AIPAC donates directly is a world where we're going to hear a lot more calls to "reject AIPAC money" (just like rejecting "fossil fuel money" or "gun lobby money"), and that's a fight that AIPAC loses just by having. Notice how it again largely traverses this debate in the status quo by serving as a connection point: saying "reject AIPAC money" is a lot easier and pithier and tractable than "reject Sue Lowenstein's money" where Sue is the local Jewish donor that nobody has ever heard of but whom AIPAC set up with the fresh-faced state senator running for a new House seat.

At the same time, wading directly into the domestic political fray poses problems for AIPAC on the GOP side of things too. Shortly after AIPAC's announcement, J Street issued a call to all Jewish and pro-Israel organizations to commit to not donating to any politician who refused to endorse the validity of the 2020 election results. Seems like a no-brainer and the obvious right decision -- and it is -- but that also covers nearly 150 Republican members of Congress, because, and I can't emphasize this enough, rejecting the basic operation of American democracy is the mainstream Republican position. Yet it'd be pretty tough for AIPAC to maintain its vaunted "bipartisan" credibility while disavowing the bulk of the GOP. Whereas before it could easily traverse this issue because it doesn't donate to candidates, now its ducking has to be far more out in the open. AIPAC thus far hasn't commented (no kidding), but we'll all see the list of candidates it selects to donate to sooner rather than later. The ducking can only last so long (and while I'm at it, kudos to J Street for a pretty savvy political squeeze play).

Obviously, we'll see how all this shakes out soon enough. But I'm skeptical this is going to turn out well for AIPAC. I'm on the record as saying AIPAC desperately needed to mend fences with the Democratic Party if it wants to stay relevant as a bipartisan actor. If this is their gambit for doing so, it leaves a lot to be desired. More direct money is no substitute for a robust, realistic policy vision that Democrats who care about both Israeli and Palestinian security, safety, and equality can get behind without embarrassment.

Where Does Adelson's Wealth Go Now (Politically Speaking)?

Sheldon Adelson, casino magnate and massive backer of conservative and right-wing causes (particularly in the Jewish community), has died at age 87.

I don't feel the need to do any retrospective on Adelson's life. Suffice to say, while he did donate to some good causes, particularly in the medical field, his primary contribution to public life were to bolster regressive and reactionary forces in America and Israel. This influence will not be missed.

Of course, even with his death, his money doesn't simply disappear. The question is whether his heirs are as committed to serving as right-wing kingmakers as he was. To the extent his death dries up a significant source of conservative largesse, it could make a significant difference in the ecosystem of right-wing politics (again, especially in the Jewish community where Adelson was a major benefactor of an array of reactionary institutions).

Adelson's wife, Miriam, is a physician and is probably more responsible for the health-side donations of Adelson fortune. It's possible that she will pivot to focus more on those endeavors, which would be an unadulterated good. That said, while not having as high a profile as her husband, from all appearances Miriam's politics are not materially different from her late partner, and so it is entirely possible that she'll keep up the money flow same as before.

I suppose we'll see. But it will be interesting to see the degree to which the heirs of some of the Republican mega-fortunes share their parents' politics. It's possible that deaths such as these could effectuate significant shifts in the political landscape simply by changing who signs the checks (which is itself not exactly a healthy indicia of democracy, but leave that aside for now).

Beckles' Chevron Money is Shockingly Irrelevant

Way at the bottom of my elections predictions post, I revealed that I was supporting Buffy Wicks for my local Assembly race. It was a contest I was undecided on even three weeks ago, but then I found out that Wicks' opponent, Jovanka Beckles, had voted for Jill Stein in 2016 and ... well, that "decided" things real quick for me. It was more than just a "protest vote" (though that'd be bad enough), she was actually pushing the "DemExit" line and urging African-American voters to rethink their "loyalty" to the Democratic Party (which, I can't count the ughs).

That said, despite endorsing Wicks in that post I also predicted a Beckles victory. It seemed like her campaign was showing more energy and hustle than Wicks, and while Berkeley's reputation for wild-eyed radicalism is in this day and age significantly overstated, it's still the case that a Berkeley- and Richmond-centered district is one in which a candidate with Beckles' profile could do well.

Now, Berkeleyside reports that we finally have a poll in the district, and it indeed shows Beckles narrowly ahead. There are reasons to take a grain of salt with it: it's a Beckles internal, it's within the margin of error, and it actually shows Wicks with better favorability ratings. That said, Wicks hasn't released her own numbers, and while Assembly races are rarely polled, it's hard for me to imagine that given Wicks' massive resource edge over Beckles that she hasn't done some internal polling of her own. If she had better numbers, I think we'd see them.

But that's not what this post is about either. The most interesting thing about that Berkeleyside article comes in the middle, when it reveals who funded the poll for Beckles: a group called California African American PAC whose backers include Chevron (as well as many other corporations and like groups). This is a bit embarrassing for Beckles, as much of her line of attack on Wicks has been of the "funded by X which includes Y who supported Z" variety, and so Wicks is unsurprisingly making hay. Beckles has since disavowed the funding (it's an independent expenditure, so she can't actually do anything about it); though Wicks pointed out that this was a convenient position for Beckles to take after they've already dumped a bunch of money into doing polling work for the campaign.

All of this, I have to say, is pretty standard-issue political sniping, and normally I'd tune it out. Indeed, for me, this demonstrates just how stupid this whole "funded by" line of attack is. I get why Beckles had to disavow the cash (and I get why Wicks is nonetheless making hay over it), but it also feels profoundly stupid.

Simply put, Jovanka Beckles has made her career on fighting Chevron. Say what you will about her, but I have zero concern that if and when she gets to Sacramento she'll suddenly be in Chevron's pocket because of this expenditure, and it frankly strikes me as flat-bonkers to believe otherwise. Beckles can't control who spends money on her behalf, and neither she nor any other politician is an automaton obligated to dispense favors in exchange for campaign cash (I've often joked that if I were running for office -- which I never want to do -- I'd happily take coal money: it'd be a redistribution of wealth away from destroying the planet and towards things like reproductive justice).

So I'm sure Wicks appreciates the hypocrisy, and I'm sure Beckles is a tinge embarrassed. But really, this happenstance does more than anything to convince me that the "who's funding who" line just isn't germane in a race like this. I have a very particular reason for backing Wicks over Beckles, one that relates to Beckles' own judgment. I don't need to make an off-the-wall inference regarding the agenda of a funder-of-a-funder to get there, and I think that's a frankly silly reason to make a decision in a race like this.

Why Is Montgomery County Immune to Money in Politics?

The Democratic primary for the Montgomery County (MD) Executive race was a nail-biter this year, pitting progressive County Councilor Marc Elrich against business and political outsider David Blair. But -- pending a potential recount -- it looks like Elrich won the race by less than 100 votes.

Elrich was backed by the Democratic Socialists of America and other left-leaning groups, and they're claiming another victory. Blair, for his part, dumped almost three million dollars of his own money into the race only to come up short (Elrich chose to use public financing).

It's striking to see someone with that much of a financial edge lose a race like this. And it's not the first time Montgomery County Democrats have passed on well-financed candidates.

In 2016, businessman David Trone spent a record-setting $13.2 million dollars of his own money in the Democratic primary for the 8th congressional district, which largely encompasses Montgomery County, only to lose to American University Law Professor Jamie Raskin.  Raskin ran as the most progressive candidate in his 2016 primary race, and he's lived up to that label by becoming (according to Progressive Punch) the single-most liberal member of the entire House delegation.
(Trone, for his part, trotted northwest to the open 6th congressional district, where he just secured the Democratic nomination for 2018).

And that 8th district seat? It was open because its former occupant, Chris Van Hollen, made the jump to the U.S. Senate. And Van Hollen, for his part, won his initial 2002 Democratic primary over Mark Shriver (of the Kennedy Shrivers) despite being outraised 2:1.

Montgomery County is one of the wealthiest counties in the country, with a median household income of over $100,000. The consistent success of progressive Democrats beating back better-funded but more centrist foes makes for an interesting contrast to the claim that affluent suburbs will serve as a drag on moving the Democratic Party to the left.

Maybe this is just a series of anecdotes. But it sure seems that Montgomery County seems uniquely resistant to being swamped by big dollar candidates. Assuming that's right, what gives MoCo this rare immunity?

This is outside my area of political science. But here are some possibilities worth exploring:

• Diversity: Montgomery County is far more racially diverse than it is often given credit for. It is now a majority-minority county, though non-Hispanic Whites remain a plurality (44% non-Hispanic White, 20% Black, 20% Latino, and 16% Asian). That alone often correlates to a leftier-lean, and potentially more suspicion of big spenders in politics.
• Education: Montgomery County ranks seventh in the country in terms of residents with college degrees; third in the country for graduate degrees. It's possible that more educated voters are less effected by the boons one can buy with big money.
• Political proximity: Montgomery County comprises the northwest suburbs of DC, meaning that it has a lot of government workers and thus a potentially unique level of political literacy. That could translate to greater levels of political engagement, counteracting availability effects that emerge from carpet-bombing advertising strategies.

Con Law I Roundup

I taught my first class of Constitutional Law today (thus, as one of my colleagues put it, making me officially a "professor of constitutional law"). I think it went well -- particularly the part where we had a vibrant discussion about the merits and demerits of what they did not know to be the North Korean constitution's equivalent of a bill of rights.

* * *

In shocking, shocking news, new research shows that people aren't actually any more upset when decisions they dislike come from the courts rather than the legislature.

The tide has turned: opposing the Voting Rights Act may be the new GOP consensus position.

Buy Newt, get Palin along for the ride. What could be better?

Supreme Court blocks an Alabama execution of a man who missed an appeal deadline because, unbeknownst to him, all his attorneys had stopped representing him without telling anybody (the client, the courts, the family ... anyone at all, really). Scalia and Thomas dissented. Incidentally, the elite NYC law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell does not come off looking good in all of this.

Eugene Volokh asks a fair question, which is what critics of the "corporations have First Amendment rights" folks have to say about the actions of Google, et al, in vociferously protesting SOPA.

Massive protest by Ethiopian Jews against racism in Israel.

I Can Barely Hear Myself Think Over the Yapping of these Peasants!

Today, in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, the Supreme Court did something rather amazing: It held that the state's nondiscriminatory promotion of speech violated the First Amendment. The law struck down Arizona's public financing system for elections, whereby candidates who elected into the system received a lump-sum payment, and then an additional 94 cents for every dollar their opponent spent above that sum, for up to three times the original amount proffered (at which point they are barred from any more spending). All candidates can choose to opt-in to the system, or they can choose not to. But several privately-funded candidates sued, saying this violated their First Amendment rights.

My first thought on reading this fact pattern was to think that this is more than just a clean loser -- it's a patently frivolous argument. Not only did the plaintiffs have the option -- which they declined -- of utilizing the public finance system, but after electing not to receive the subsidy, they face a grand total of zero penalties or restrictions on their own spending. Public financed candidates in Arizona are restricted to 3x the original grant, no matter how much their opponents spend. And that matters, since their opponents can spend as much as they want, wherever they want, however they want.

Justice Kagan's dissent gets to the nub of the matter, and demonstrates the absurdity of what passes for the majority's "analysis":

This suit, in fact, may merit less attention than any challenge to a speech subsidy ever seen in this Court. In the usual First Amendment subsidy case, a person complains that the government declined to finance his speech, while bankrolling someone else's; we must then decide whether the government differentiated between these speakers on a prohibited basis—because it preferred one speaker's ideas to another's. See, e.g., id., at 577–578; Regan, 461 U. S., at 543–545. But the candidates bringing this challenge do not make that claim--because they were never denied a subsidy. Arizona, remember, offers to support any person running for state office. Petitioners here refused that assistance. So they are making a novel argument: that Arizona violated their First Amendment rights by disbursing funds to other speakers even though they could have received (but chose to spurn) the same financial assistance. Some people might call that chutzpah.

Indeed, what petitioners demand is essentially a right to quash others' speech through the prohibition of a (universally available) subsidy program. Petitioners are able to convey their ideas without public financing—and they would prefer the field to themselves, so that they can speak free from response. To attain that goal, they ask this Court to prevent Arizona from funding electoral speech--even though that assistance is offered to every state candidate, on the same (entirely unobjectionable) basis. And this Court gladly obliges.

The only "burden" (or "restriction", or "limit", or whichever equally ludicrous synonym you prefer -- and the majority offers many) on the privately-financed candidate's speech is that their opponents are given the (limited) capacity to talk back. As Chief Justice Roberts observes, "All else being equal, an advertisement supporting the election of a candidate that goes without a response is often more effective than an advertisement that is directly controverted." Which, yes, I suppose that's true. But it's also a inordinately creepy way of conceptualizing a free speech "burden". As Justice Kagan observes, "the very notion that additional speech constitutes a 'burden' is odd and unsettling."

Scott Lemieux says that this case has to be in the conversation for any top ten list of "worst Roberts Court" decision, and I'm inclined to agree. I'm someone who is actually somewhat on the fence on "money as speech" campaign finance questions generally, but even I think this decision is obviously, almost laughably, incorrect.

Justice Brandeis once cast the First Amendment debate as between "more speech and enforced silence". Today's opinion might be the first in Supreme Court history to so proudly wave the banner of the latter.

The Lie That Jewish Donors are Abandoning Obama

Greg Sargent demolishes it here. Now, let's be clear -- there are some Jewish donors, Democratic ones even, that never liked Obama in the first place. They didn't donate to him the first time around, and they're not going to do so in 2012. Haim Saban falls into this category. And, what's more, I expect Obama's Jewish vote percentage to fall off, albeit modestly, from its 2012 peak. That's for several reasons: (1) 2012 won't be the rout 2008 was, (2) the economy will depress Obama's vote amongst all sectors, and (3) Republicans can't possibly be dumb enough to have someone like Sarah Palin on their ticket this time (can they?).

But with respect to the "big" story -- that wealthy Jewish Obama supporters are fleeing him in droves over his taking the mainstream American Jewish position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict -- no, it's just not happening.

Worse Than My Lai

Former Bush administration official John Yoo has finally found a limit on executive power: Forcing federal contractors to disclose contributions to government officials. He says the "only" purpose for such a law is to pave the way for harassment and retaliation (not, apparently, transparency and fighting corruption).

TPM confirms that the editorial is silent as to whether "the President has the executive power to torture executives to force them to disclose their political donations."

Stand By Your Ad, Mark II

Democrats, led by President Obama, are trying to reverse the influence of corporate money on elections in the wake of Citizens United, have hit on some interesting ideas:

One provision would require the chief executive of any company or group that is the main backer of a campaign advertisement to personally appear in television and radio spots to acknowledge the sponsorship, the officials said.

These are akin to the "I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message" bits you see at the end of every candidate ad, except applied to corporations (and presumably, unions and other such groups). Kevin Drum applies this standard to a California Proposition being pushed by Pacific Gas & Electric designed to force public competitors out of business. The ads, of course, feature "the most reasonable looking soccer mom you've ever laid eyes on, and it's in heavy rotation financed by PG&E's millions." But would they be as effective if the CEO of a massive power company was forced to come on at the end? Maybe not.

Corporations are People Too!

It might be a sign of just how outside the mainstream the Citizens United decision was that the Washington Post just published a quasi-serious article on the quasi-serious effort of Murray Hill, Inc., a Public Relations firm, to get on the ballot as a Republican in the 8th District of Maryland.