Front Burner - The backlash against AIPAC

Episode Date: June 8, 2026

For decades, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known as AIPAC, has been one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in Washington.It has helped shape U.S. policy toward Israel, cultivated relationships with lawmakers from both parties, and more recently spent millions of dollars helping elect candidates it supports and defeat those it doesn't.But after the war in Gaza, Israel's conflicts with Iran and Lebanon, and a dramatic shift in public opinion among many Democrats, AIPAC's influence is facing new scrutiny. Candidates are increasingly being asked whether they'll accept its support, some are actively distancing themselves from the organization. Today on Front Burner, Alex Shephard of The New Republic explains how AIPAC became one of the most powerful forces in American politics, and why, for the first time, its political influence is facing meaningful resistance.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

Let's see if Toronto advisors know their group insurance providers. Who has extensive expertise in both traditional group benefits and special risk solutions? Beneva. Beneva. Beeneva. Looks like people are starting to know Beneva pretty well. You're stronger with the right partner. Beneva.

This is a CBC podcast. Hey, everyone. I'm Jamie Poisson. On Tuesday, voters in Maine will be voting in the Senate primary. The Democratic frontrunner is Graham Platner, a rough and tumble Iraq. Fet, an oyster farmer with a firm anti-war stance, with his fair share of controversies. He says his likely main opponent, come November, incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins, is bought and paid for by Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu. And while that's not actually true, what he's referring to is the sizable chunk of Collins'

fundraising that comes from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or APAC, the leading pro-Israel lobby group in the U.S. For years, they've appealed to American elected officials to preserve the U.S.'s relationship with Israel and continue its support for Israel's military and foreign policy positions. And in recent years, they poured millions of dollars directly into election campaigns to support aligned candidates and unseat critics. And they're doing the same this year ahead of the midterms. But with the shift in public opinion after the war in Gaza, along with Israel's involvement in the war with Iran and their assault on Lebanon, the APAC brand is increasingly toxic for Democrats, with more candidates actively distancing themselves from the group.

So we're welcoming back Alex Shepard from the New Republic to talk about APAC's role in American politics over the years and how it is changing. Alex, great to have you back, as always. It's great to be with you. So I want to start with what's happening so far in the primaries and the lead up to the midterms. One of the biggest stories to come out was what happened last month with Kentucky Republican Congressman Thomas Massey. We have a projection to make in Kentucky. CNN can now project that Ed Galrine will win the Republican primary against Thomas Massey for the... He lost in the most expensive House primary race in U.S. history with overall ad spending topping $32 million, around $15.8 million from APEC, and two other pro-Israel groups went towards anti-Massie ads and his opponent, Ed Galry. You know, welcome to the most expensive congressional primary ever in the...

the 250-year history of this country. It's not just the most expensive. This thing went on longer than Vietnam. It started nine months ago, and they didn't even have a candidate, and they decided they want to take me out. Can you talk me through why so much money went towards taking Massey down after he had served in the House for 14 years? Yeah, I mean, I think it's really two reasons. So if you look at recent primary elections, they tend to get a lot of money if they hit one of two marks. So one is if the person, if it's a Republican primary, if the person is a Trump critic. And then on the other side, it doesn't matter which party it is. If that person is a critic of Israel, then you're going to see a ton of money flow in.

Massey is the rare person who checks both boxes. And so that's why this was the most expensive primary in U.S. history. I think the biggest crime I committed was showing the American people that somebody on the right could join somebody on the left and get something done, which is releasing the Epstein files that everybody knew needed to be done, that's probably the only bill that's passed Washington, D.C. in the last 10 years that lobbyists haven't written. It was written by me and Roe Kana. When you say they that they spent money to try to buy the state, who are you talking about specifically? I'm talking about the Israeli lobby, A PAC, Republican Jewish Coalition,

Miriam Edelson, Paul Singer, and John Paulson. These are the groups that have given 95% of the money to my opponent because they're mad at me over foreign policy. Now, what's interesting is... In contrast, tell me a little bit about his opponent, Ed Gal Ryan. So Ed Gal Ryan, you know, in a lot of ways, he represents this sort of post-Trump drift of the Republican Party that Trump needs Republicans to sort of show loyalty to him above all else. So basically, as long as you fulfill that criteria, you're kind of, you're a long way forward.

I want to thank President Trump for his support, his endorsements. and his counsel as I navigated this campaign, which is a journey. And then after that, he kind of represents a host of traditional Republican points of views. So in this case, he's very pro-Israel, as opposed to Thomas Massey. And, you know, Massey, in contrast, you could say that he kind of, he represents like the old lunatic friendship, the Republican Party, for lack of a better term, that he is a sort of diehard libertarian, much like sort of Rand Paul, the sort of senator for, from Kentucky, he's much more inclined to break with his party over what he thinks of as kind of,

you know, small government principles. Whereas Galrain is somebody who's basically going to follow Trump first, and then after that sort of bow to various other special interest groups, you know, sort of big business and the Israel lobby. Right, right. And just when it comes to Massey and Israel, just tell me a little bit more about what his position was that, like how critical was he of Israel? Yeah. I mean, I think by this. standards of the Republican Party, he was extraordinarily critical. I mean, he was somebody who did call Israel's sort of military campaign in Gaza after October 7th at genocide. He's somebody who, you know, partly because of those libertarian principles that I mentioned earlier, has been very

critical of the sort of U.S. economic relationship with Israel. He's very critical of what we would call the military industrial complex. My policy has always been, no country is special, and no country deserves my constituents taxpayer dollars. So I have never voted for foreign aid to Egypt, to Syria, to Israel, or to Ukraine. But the ones in Israel, since they're the biggest recipients of it, that makes them a little bit mad. So, you know, Israel, to him, I think, represents this kind of, like, gigantic boondoggle that stands in for, like, everything that he dislikes about America's foreign entanglement, that it's expensive, that it represents, like, U.S. taxpayer money going overseas.

and that again, in the case of Gaza, right, it all comes to the forefront because this is the United States taxpayers paying billions of dollars to a foreign country to slaughter civilians, right? Like that is, you know, kind of a pretty neat encapsulation of why some libertarians, you know, oppose military aid in this form. You know, so for Massey, I think there's this sort of bigger picture here, which is that he doesn't, he doesn't want the U.S. to provide military or economic aid to anybody, really. But like in Israel, it becomes a kind of neat, neat package in that way. Are you anti-Semitic? Oh, hell no.

I'm hell no. Anti-Semitic. But here's the danger that APAC runs. They've been too cute by a half. They've tried to get Mike Johnson, and he's willingly done this, conflate in resolutions on the House floor, that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism. Or even worse yet, that if you don't support Benjamin Netanyahu's war in Gaza,

then you're anti-Semitic. That's absolutely false, and it does Jewish Americans a big disfavor to equate the two. The other reason why this race was so expensive is that on the Democratic side of the aisle, like Israel's become a huge issue, right? Israel's popularity among everyone has been dropping in recent years, but among Democrats, it's really cratered post-October 7th. So the whole idea behind APEC is that support for Israel remained bipartisan. So for Massey, Massey represented like one of the few Republicans to really step out and criticize Israel. So they had to make a, make an example of him, essentially. They had to say, look, we have to protect sort of bipartisan image of the American-Israeli

relationship. So, you know, any Republican who steps out is especially dangerous to this, you know, because there are so few of them. And do you think that the outcome, his loss is seen as a success in that regard? I think, yeah, by the standards that APEC has set out recently. So that's post, it's only really started spending money in elections, I think after 2021. So the, the midterm elections in 2022 were the first kind of big spending push. And what you've seen is that they have essentially privileged short-term victories or short-term defeats in Massey's case as like the be-all and end-all. So theoretically, right, like the goal with defeating Massey was to send a message to other Republicans, which is to say, okay, if you have a crisis of conscience or if you're like,

you know, ideological persuasions say that you should, you know, publicly criticize Israel, you should think twice because we'll, you know, drop tens of millions of dollars into your backyard and will create a huge problem for you. In the longer term, though, I'm not entirely sure. I mean, one, I think it's just not as big an issue on the right as it is on the left. But, you know, I just don't think that any Republican, you know, one is going to be tempted to break with Israel that much. And, you know, he's going to look at this and say, oh, no, you know, police don't have this AIPAC money come spending, you know, spend it in my backyard. And I think two is, you know, the longer term problem that APEC has is just that Americans are souring on their

relationship with Israel writ large in both parties. And so, yes, just defeating Massey help their cause in the short term, right? Yes, but it doesn't do anything to change their bigger problem, which is that public opinion in this country is shifting against Israel. I want to go through a couple of other races here, upcoming races, where pro-Israel groups are targeting specific candidates. Voters in Maine will be voting in the Democratic Senate primary race, where the favorite to take on Republican incumbent Susan Collins come November is this Democrat newcomer Graham Platner. My name is Graham Platner, and I'm running for U.S. Senate in Maine to defeat Susan Collins, a decade of military service going overseas. Farming oysters to feed my community,

diving to lend a hand to other fishermen, trying to start a family. But everywhere I've gone, it seems like The fabric of what holds us together is being ripped apart by billionaires and corrupt politicians, profiting off of destroying our environment. His campaign has been plagued also with a string of controversies, but just what are they? And how is APEC taking aim at him? So, I mean, Platner's entire campaign is built around this idea that he's not your normal campaigner, that he's a sort of traditional manor, right? And his early campaign videos all featured him on a boat because he's an oyster farmer.

He talks up his military service. He is a kind of gruff speaking voice. He's had heavily tattooed. We'll get to that later. He's got a beard. He speaks in a kind of down-to-earth way. And he talks about his own struggles with like PTSD and addiction issues, you know, as a way of sort of showcasing his, you know, his credentials as a sort of salt of the earth manor. And so the string of scandals with him is, again, he sort of came out of nowhere.

and shortly after his sort of rise in late fall, shortly after, I should say, the Democratic Senate campaign committee backed the state's governor as a challenger. A bunch of old Reddit post surfaced. These included him making disparaging remarks about women and black people and police officers. And I believe also fellow members of the U.S. military or veterans. One asking why black people don't tip. And said rural white Americans actually all. are racist and stupid. In other posts from 2013, he minimized challenges faced by service members in reporting sexual assault, writing, quote,

you make a choice to consume enough of a substance to lose yourself control. So if you don't want to be in a compromising situation, act like an adult for F's sake. This sort of plagued him for a while. Shortly after that, it was revealed that he had a tattoo of a Nazi SS symbol at Totenkov. on his chest. He kind of first tried to kind of hem and hob at it. He got it removed shortly after or altered. The skull and crossbones is because of what we had done.

I mean, there's a reason military units choose skull and crossbones as very regular and popular motifs. I got that tattoo and then I lived the next 20 years with it. If I had thought at any point along this way that I had had. had a very obvious tattoo that had connotations of Nazism, I would have gotten rid of it. I got rid of it. It has now been covered up. I covered it up last night. So this sort of had moved on, moved on, moved on, it didn't matter. Like, main voters just still liked the guy and he was polling consistently 20 points above Mills, the candidate backed by the DSCC.

And then most recently... The New York Times reporting several ex-girlfriends describe unsettling behavior, One alleging Platner grabbed her hard enough to leave marks, and during one argument, twisted her arm behind her back and blocked her in a room. Plattner fiercely denies any violence. We don't know what the most recent crop of scandals will do, but the sort of backlog of other things sort of hanging over this race. And again, to some extent, there are connections.

Because hanging over this is also the question of this tattoo, and did he know what it was? He says that he didn't. And because he's been such a vocal critic of Israel and with Susan Collins, his opponent's relationship with Israel, that has all kind of become this big mess for lack of the better term. And just tell me more about how APEC is specifically taking aim at him. Yeah. So, I mean, a lot of groups are spending in this race because it's probably the most important race in the 2026 cycle. Maine is a state that traditionally votes for Democratic presidents in recent years. It is, you know, probably a, you know, a state that favors Democrats by about 10.

10 points, but it's been represented by Susan Collins, who's a Republican since the 1990s. So, you know, for Democrats, it's a huge pickup for them. Right. They want to flip it. And I think, you know, for a lot of groups, they don't want to flip it, right? So for President Trump, this is a very important state because it's a blue state with a Republican senator who, you know, when it's not an election year, is a pretty reliable vote for his agenda. And, you know, she does switch in election years and always has. So that's one reason. But I think for a group like APEC, right, Collins also represents a reliable vote for Israel's agenda in the United States and or for pro-Israel politics. And for, you know, she votes for military aid for Israel. She will not vote for,

you know, any form of shifting that. She's just always kind of got to go to vote yes when when aid for economic or military aid comes up for Israel. And Platner has made this as centerpiece. I think for two reasons. I think one is because it is a sort of, he seems to genuinely believe that it, you know, that continued support for the genocide in Gaza is a moral abomination. What has happened in Gaza is going, it's the moral question of our time. And we failed it miserably. We continue to fail. You know, there's a genocide that has been committed in Gaza.

And we continue to not only not stand up against it, but allow it to happen, run political cover for it, run diplomatic cover for it. But also because I think for Democratic voters, become a real litmus test, right? And so Platner is casting himself as an outsider candidate, right? Somebody who is not like other establishment politicians. And the easiest, cleanest way to do that in 2026 is to say that you will not support military aid for Israel anymore. Let's see if Toronto advisors know their life insurance providers.

Who offers whole life insurance with a whole lot of cash value? Beneva. Beneva. Beniva. Beeneva. It looks like people are starting to know Beneva pretty well. You're stronger with the right partner. Beneva.

Have you ever wondered how clean the seats on the TTC are? I found, like, chicken bones or, like, bed bogs. Or why so many Toronto restaurant bathrooms are in dank basements? Sometimes it's the most sketchy things. Like, when you go down, it's like, what is this? I'm Hayden Waters, a reporter and producer on the podcast. This is Toronto. From breaking down Doug Ford's obsession with the island airport,

We have to bring Jets in. To being inside an iconic Toronto strip club in its... in its final hours. We go beyond the headlines of the day and get to know Toronto in all its big, beautiful, frustrating, wardy, fascinating glory. So find and follow us,

this is Toronto, wherever you get your podcast. There's also the Senate race in Michigan. It's a neck and neck race, right? Between Dr. Abdul al-Said, the most progressive of the bunch, Haley Stevens, the closest to the Democratic establishment and Mallory McMorrow,

whose position to herself is somewhere in the middle of the other two. In a recent debate, Stephen was asked about accepting money from donors to APAC, and she stumbled through this kind of non-answer. We squarely need to put people at the front of our agenda. And campaigns are about movements of ideas, Stephen. Campaigns are about movements of ideas.

And I articulate positions of freedom and democracy and what Michigan needs to succeed at the global stage and national. And you're also just not answering the question. Go ahead. And talk to me about that moment and how it actually illustrates the way the association with APEC and the pro-Israel lobby group is becoming more of an issue for Democrats in a way that it hasn't before. That moment in the debate, I think, captured that race really perfectly. So you have Stevens is the once again, the sort of Democratic senatorial campaign committee backed candidate. She's who the establishment wants.

And she represents the establishment's point of view here. And she's really struggled with the kind of spotlight here. I mean, she's a reasonably successful politician in the House, is represented in Michigan for a little bit. She's young. But what you saw here, I think, was like a real struggle to figure out what the actual establishment democratic position is vis-a-vis A-PAC, but also Israel. So she was challenged about, you know, accepting dark money, I think, from Israel and, you know, tried to basically sort of distance herself from it without disavowing it. Look, Michiganders are frustrated because we have not. done comprehensive campaign finance reform. Mike Rogers will not vote for comprehensive campaign finance reform like I have in the House of Representatives. And I think that's what we've seen a lot

lately from more pro-Israel politicians is to try to find some way to kind of not answer the question or to shirk responsibility for it. And because I think, you know, you still have plenty of Democratic politicians, most notably the party's leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, who are still pretty loudly pro-Israel. But I think for candidates that are running for tough elections, it's become a really tough position. And so when they get pressed, it's sort of like trying to nail jello to the wall. They kind of won't say, oh, yes, you know, I, you know, fully value and treasure the U.S.

Israeli relationship, which is what Chuck Schumer, is what politicians have been saying forever. And, you know, her opponents jumped on her for it. But one of the reasons why I think that race is so interesting is that El-Syad, who is this sort of, you know, Bernie Sanders kind of disciple has been running an unabashedly progressive campaign in that mold has made Gaza and the U.S. relationship with Israel a centerpiece of his campaign, which makes sense partly because Michigan has a disproportionately high Arab population. And that population, you know, helped shift the state to Donald Trump in 2024, for instance. And so he has basically, you know, made this kind of one of his key issues that ending the U.S.

support for Israel. Let me tell you what absolutely would not shape my perception. It's APAC money, which is being spent already in this race to pump up one of my colleagues on this stage. I'm the only candidate who didn't ask APAC for their support. I don't think that our taxpayer dollars, which we pay every April, ought to be going to bomb children to fund bombs and tanks for other countries when we got kids who can't afford basic things in our own.

And McMorough is kind of caught in between, and I think she represents where a lot of democratic politicians are right now, which is that they, they are more willing to criticize Israel than somebody like Stevens or an establishment, you know, aligned candidate is. You know, they're much more likely to say, like, okay, I would support ending, for instance, military aid to Israel. But beyond that, like, there's not a clear answer, right? El Saeed is just like, it's done. Like, I'm not going to support any of this. Like, as long as this sort of, you know, as long as Israel is apartheid state, as long as the genocide in Gaza is continuing, you know, the U.S. is not going to send military or economic aid to Israel.

And McMorro, I think, is trying to figure out what the other position is. And I think what we're seeing in these races is that, like, the Democratic Party, the sort of mainstream Democratic Party does not have a kind of clear answer here anymore about what it thinks the sort of normal or proper relationship between the U.S. and Israel should be. If Al-S.D. wins. What message would you take from that? I mean, I think one, the biggest one probably is that this, that the U.S. relationship with Israel is maybe the most important litmus test heading into the 2028 primary, that it's going to become a kind of dividing line between establishment and insurgent candidates. And I think there too, you would look at somebody like John Ossoff, the senator in from Georgia, who's running for reelection, who's probably going to win. Looks like he's in a good position to win. and who is, you know, young, Jewish, and pretty critical of Israel, but still establishment a line. And, you know, I think that has, I think, tended to be where the party is going, that

if you're, you can kind of still move forward as an establishment link candidate, if you break with Israel, you know, especially over military aid. But if Al-Saiad wins, I think that actually the line may have shifted even further than we thought here that candidates will, you know, be expected to take an even bolder position, which I think is, is in. interesting, but it's mostly interesting because the party is not ready at all for that. Like, partly due to its deep links to the American Jewish community, which have existed for decades, partly due to democratic politicians are significantly more pro-Israel than their bases. And I think partly because there isn't actually like a clear off-ramp yet here that

it's not exactly sure. We're not exactly clear how the next Democratic administration is going to conduct foreign policy, right? The general consensus among Democrats, even pro-Israel Democrats, I should say, is that the Biden administration badly mishandled the war in Gaza and the response to it and that they should have done something different. Now, what that different thing is, nobody knows yet. But I think that there is still a sense that they can kind of rebuild the plane to some extent, that they can put this thing back together in a way that is coherent and that doesn't involve a full break from Israel. But I think what we're seeing is that the party's actual basis way ahead of them here, that, you know, the party's base is, I think, rightly angry,

still viscerally angry at the Biden administration's support for the genocide in Gaza, and that they want to see a change in direction from the party's leadership. And, you know, the party's leadership has not yet figured out how to articulate that. And so, again, if El Siyadh wins, you're seeing a situation in which, you know, that represents something I think is closer to where the base of the party is than where the actual politicians are. I want to come back squarely to APEC here, which has been around for decades, right? And just to briefly run through their origin story, APEC was founded by an Israeli lobbyist to deal with a fallout and political repercussions after the Israeli army massacre dozens of Palestinians, mostly women and children in the West Bank, Kibya, in 1953.

It became a stronger financial and political force on the hill after the 1970s. 73 Yom Kippur War. After that surprise attack on Israel, there was this great push to ensure stable aid from the U.S. And just how much of a mostly kind of unchallenged mainstay, have they been in American politics kind of up until recently? I know you've done, did a bit of this earlier, but perhaps just if you could elaborate for me. Yeah, I mean, they were a fixture of the American political establishment. They always had critics both on, you know, parts of the progressive left, usually fairly far left and parts of the far right. But in general, they were a lobbying organization whose sole mission was essentially to ensure continued bipartisan

support for Israel. And that meant building relationships with both parties. And I think with also acting as a kind of sort of like foreign policy shepherd or handholding organization that, especially with presidential candidates, they would kind of get in there early. For somebody like Barack Obama, who sort of had kept some distance early on, but started to speak annually at their conferences, you know, they were an organization that could provide a kind of mainstream credibility. And what we've seen in recent years is that public opinion on Israel has shifted. It was starting to shift even before sort of the post-October 7th, born in Gaza, but it sort of really started to shift afterwards, is that APAC and I think more important, importantly, like many of APAC's major donors grew so alarmed at the sort of response within the country that they demanded more and more action. So what we saw, particularly in the last few cycles, is them spending millions of dollars to try to influence elections with mixed success. And I think that, you know, there are a couple ways of looking at it. And there

are some people that say, okay, well, what we're seeing here is that APAC, you know, was always able to use its money to successfully lobby America to maintain this relationship with Israel that was, you know, maybe not in its interest and that they were kind of pulling the strings here on behalf of the foreign policy of another country. And there are, there are ways in which that's true. And I think we can talk about them in the second where APEC pushed American politicians to support things like heavy sanctions on Iran that are very much in keeping with the Israeli foreign policy. But I think that actually the truth is somewhat different that APEC's success was actually rooted in the fact that, you know, acceptance and support for Israel was a part.

of the bipartisan consensus in this country that its success is in some ways exaggerated over in the past that American politicians wanted to support Israel because it was where the American public was. It was where American foreign policy was. And APAC, you know, was a way for them to do that and to showcase that. But, you know, APAC did not make U.S. politicians provide, you know, billions of dollars in aid for Israel, right? They wanted to do it anyways. A PAC was a way to sort of solidify that relationship and legitimate it. And I think what we're seeing now is there's been this huge shift in public opinion. And APEC's donors in particular, I think, are overstating its ability to influence things. They think that this organization can just shift public opinion.

That in fact, that APEC was responsible for the success of the bipartisan consensus on Israel. I don't think that's true. And I think what we're seeing is that that's starting to disintegrate, now. And, you know, APAC is is stuck in a very perilous position because the bipartisan consensus here is crumbling. And I think where they're left is a very, very tricky position. You can look at this with Massey, right? That, you know, the Republican Party remains largely pro-Israel, right? Much more, so compared to the Democrats, but the Republican Party right now is kind of crazy. It's enthralled to Donald Trump. And, you know, they're stuck kind of making these really, I think, tricky decisions here to back these kind of MAGA, Trump-aligned politicians, or what?

You know, and also with this pushback against APAC, we're seeing the rising popularity of sites that track, right? Track the donations, which gives candidates like a grade-based on how much money they've received from APAC and other pro-Israel lobbyists, sort of like the NRA, right? There are a lot more people keeping a close eye on this stuff. And at least the case of the congressional race in Illinois, I've seen reports suggest that APEC is finding ways to fly under the radar more. And so talk to me more about how they could be doing that. Yeah. So this is a sort of outgrowth of the sort of rise of dark money groups after the 2010 Citizens United decision. So it used to be that there were kind of limits placed on how organizations and groups could spend money on elections. But post-citizen United, you had the rise of these things called political action committees. And they were essentially allowed to.

to spend as much money as possible, right? And they don't even have to disclose where that money comes from or who their donors are. And they can just be formed like willy-nilly. So I think one of the things that's been really interesting in the U.S., really still the last couple of cycles is that APEC started spending. And there was this huge backlash against them because, you know, as we've been discussing, public opinion against has been really turned on Israel. And so, you know, if APEC, for instance,

since was supporting a candidate, you know, you could see, I think, actually sort of a backlash to that, that voters would actually say, I actually want to support their opponent. I don't want to support the AAC back candidate. And so what they started to do is that they would create these groups, dark money groups. They would have, you know, pretty innocuous titles. There would be like Chicago progressives for change or something. That isn't one, but they all have, they all have that kind of ring. And they could just make these ads that usually they would not be about Israel at all. They would just target sort of what they would call anti-Israel politicians. And that's how they were able to influence races in Chicago.

You talked before about how they're in this weird position of supporting kind of these mega-aligned candidates in the Republican Party, but just in the Democratic Party, too, the New Jersey Democratic primary in February was interesting too, right? It was won by Annalia Medjia, a progressive candidate who was very critical of the U.S. Israel relationship. What might be surprising is that some are crediting her victory to Apex's decision to run attack ads against her more moderate opponent, Tom Melanowski, because of some of his criticism of Washington's support for Israel, even though it's more mild than Medea stands. Essentially, people are arguing that that it split the centrist vote, and that's why she won,

and that it was kind of a backfire for APEC. And do you think, like, what did that, what does that tell you about their strategy in terms of, like, who they pick and who they want to stay away from? The reason why APEC got involved here is that Malinowski, who is by, I think, all accounts, a sort of, you know, true blue establishment Democrat, pro-Israel Democrat. He had offered very mild criticisms of Israel and essentially said that continued military aid needed to be conditioned, conditioned on how Israel uses weapons and how it was conducting the war in Gaza. This is, you know, what I think is probably actually the kind of mainstream establishment democratic position right now, that, you know, the U.S. should not sever its ties to Israel, but that it needs to provide more conditions about how that aid is used. And for APEC, that was a red line that was crossed because it was a criticism of Israel.

And so they started to attack Melanowski. I think partly they were doing it to try to make an example of him, to show other Democrats that if you step out even just a little bit, right, they'll spend against you. And he lost. And that may have been, you know, the intention there may have just been to send a warning shot here. Maybe not. But in any case, you know, I think.

that it creates a real problem because it's creating a standard for Democratic politicians that's completely unreasonable and way outside public opinion, right? That it's going to force Democrats to make a choice here, right? If the choices, you have to go with public opinion, which is some form of what Malinowski says, you know, in many places, it's that, you know, people don't want a full break with Israel, but they are angry and upset about how the, how, how, how USAID is being deployed. So that's or, you know, if APAC is saying that even that is too far, then I think a lot of establishment democratic politicians are going to say, well, I don't care if you spend against me. And I think that, you know, we can see the limits of how spending works,

right? The problem with dark money in this country is that there's a lot of it, right? You know, APAC may spend more than most other groups, but it's not, it's not a killer alone to just have, you know, one group against you because you're going to have other groups spending in your favor. And as we've discussed here as well, you know, and being an APAC aligned candidate is not a good thing in a lot of Democratic races here. So I think that the problem that they had was that, you know, I think a lot of what APAC has been doing in these races is donor aligned, that donors are just so furious about the response within the Democratic Party or within Democratic circles, post-October 7th, that they want action everywhere and they want consequences for even the mildest rebukes.

And if you continue along those lines, you're not going to have any friends left in Congress, basically. You know, it's only going to be the most sort of vociferously pro-Israel politicians. And so I think what we're seeing is, is this real shift that, you know, APAC, I think, could have provided another kind of lane here, which is to, you know, align itself with candidates like Malinowski, to essentially say that, you know, some form of condition of aid, you know, is acceptable. Because if you want to continue to have influence within democratic circles, right, if you want to continue to bill yourself as a you know as the sort of source of bipartisan pro-Israel policy in the united states you have to do that but uh you know i think if if they're going to continue to go along this

path of demanding essentially litmus tests that any criticism of israel you know results in them um you know loading up the money cannon and shooting it at you then they're going to be in deep deep trouble very very quickly because they're not going to have any friends in the democratic side of the aisle anymore. And all they're going to have left are the sort of MAGA wing of the Republican Party because that's who's in office on the Republican side. Okay, Alex, this is really interesting. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right, that is all for today. I'm Jamie Pousson. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.