This is an opinion of Florida Man News Network. FMNN endorsed Abdul El-Sayed and Angie Nixon in earlier editorials.
Abdul El-Sayed will be a United States senator. AIPAC spent about $30 million trying to stop that from happening. (AP via PBS)
That's the most the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has ever spent on a single race, and it lost. It's the clearest look yet at what AIPAC has become: a political machine funded by a small club of billionaires, many of them Republican megadonors. It spends to punish candidates who question U.S. policy toward Israel's government, and it often does it without ever saying so.
The money
AIPAC's PAC and its super PAC, United Democracy Project, spent at least $104.3 million in this cycle, Sludge found. That count doesn't include other super PACs AIPAC quietly bankrolls. (Common Dreams, citing Sludge)
Where does UDP's money come from? Through June, its biggest 2026 donors were hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, portfolio manager Blair Frank, private equity billionaire Marc Rowan and media investor Haim Saban, FactCheck.org reported. (FactCheck.org)
In Michigan, UDP took at least $12.76 million from Republican-aligned donors, Responsible Statecraft reported. That included $1.6 million from WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum through a group linked to him in FEC records. UDP then spent that money in a Democratic primary to beat El-Sayed. (Responsible Statecraft) Then it ran ads accusing El-Sayed of getting help from Republicans.
The playbook: say anything but "Israel"
UDP's ads often never mention Israel. (Common Dreams, citing Sludge) Voters see attacks on a candidate's character or record, not the policy fight that's actually driving the spending.
When the money gets embarrassing, it gets hidden. A pro-Rogers super PAC reportedly began taking AIPAC money after the cutoff for pre-election donor disclosure. It then spent $12.7 million attacking El-Sayed in the general election, including a $5 million buy in the final days. Voters won't see who paid until after the election. (Sludge)
That isn't advocacy. It's laundering a foreign government's agenda through ads about other things, paid for by donors who would rather you not know.
The scoreboard
Michigan wasn't AIPAC's only loss. In Chicago, AIPAC and its affiliates spent more than $5 million for Melissa Conyears-Ervin in a March Democratic primary, and she lost. (Fox News) On Tuesday, AIPAC-backed Senate candidates lost in Kansas, North Carolina and South Carolina. (WhoFundsMyRep, FEC data)
To be fair about the numbers: most AIPAC-backed candidates still won, about 92% of called races by one tracker's count. (WhoFundsMyRep) But most of that is safe incumbents in safe seats. When AIPAC went all-in against a candidate voters actually wanted, it lost.
Here in Florida
All 29 of Florida's members of Congress have pro-Israel PAC money on record, about $10.5 million combined, according to FEC data compiled by WhoFundsMyRep. (WhoFundsMyRep: Florida) Sen. Ashley Moody, who won Tuesday, took more than $621,000 from AIPAC's PAC and UDP. Rep. Randy Fine took about $750,000 in AIPAC and pro-Israel PAC money. (WhoFundsMyRep: Moody, WhoFundsMyRep: rankings)
AIPAC plays both sides here. This cycle it gave slightly more to Florida Democrats than to Republicans. (Tampa Bay Times) That's the point. AIPAC's party is whichever one it can buy influence in.
And even in Florida it's becoming a liability. At a Hillsborough County debate this summer, six Republican congressional candidates all said they would not take AIPAC money. (Florida Phoenix)
Florida Democrats' AIPAC problem starts at the top
If Florida Democrats want to run on getting this money out of our elections, they have to look at their own leadership first.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the biggest pro-Israel PAC recipient in Florida's congressional delegation, at about $1.94 million over her career, $1.54 million of it from AIPAC's PAC and its super PAC, according to FEC data compiled by WhoFundsMyRep. (WhoFundsMyRep) This cycle, FEC filings link at least $250,000 more to AIPAC. It came as a lump sum from Pro-Choice Majority Action, an affiliate of a group whose biggest funder is AIPAC's super PAC. (JTA) AIPAC money wearing an abortion-rights label is the playbook in miniature. She told JTA that Israel and AIPAC haven't typically come up "in the thousands of conversations" she's had on the campaign trail. (JTA) That's how the money is supposed to work: big enough to matter, quiet enough that voters never bring it up.
Nikki Fried has run the Florida Democratic Party since 2023. Long before that, she said part of her mission was to keep Democrats pro-Israel, and she has talked about attending AIPAC's policy conferences. (JTA, 2021, Times of Israel) As agriculture commissioner, she said she assured Israel's prime minister "unequivocally" that the Democratic Party nationally and in Florida stands united behind Israel, and she warned Democrats about "conversations on the very far left of the party." (Florida Politics)
Her voters went the other way. Florida Democrats nominated Angie Nixon, who refused AIPAC money, by 12 points. (The American Prospect) Six in 10 Americans now view Israel unfavorably, and Jewish Democrats view AIPAC more unfavorably than favorably. (JTA, The Jewish News / JTA) The party's leadership hasn't caught up with its own voters.
Credit where it's due: under Fried, Florida Democrats broke the GOP's House supermajority Tuesday on almost no national money. (FMNN) But the statewide losses keep piling up, and a party that says it's running against billionaire money can't keep its most powerful members funded by a billionaire-backed lobby. Florida's next generation of Democrats should be built like Nixon's campaign, not Wasserman Schultz's.
The Floridians who said no
Here's what it looks like to run without AIPAC's money.
Angie Nixon, U.S. Senate. The Jacksonville state representative said it plainly: "I am not receiving AIPAC funding." (Florida Politics) In the August primary she was outraised about 19 to 1, with less than $1 million against a $16 million-plus war chest, and won by 12 points anyway. (The American Prospect) She ran on Medicare for All, universal child care and a rent freeze. On Tuesday she lost to Moody, AIPAC's endorsed candidate with more than $621,000 in AIPAC money, about 51% to 48%. (WKMG News 6, WhoFundsMyRep) A three-point race against AIPAC's pick, on almost no money.
Mark Davis, U.S. House District 16. The Air Force veteran ran with no party affiliation on a simple pledge: "I do not take corporate, Democratic Party, Republican Party, or AIPAC money." (Davis campaign platform) His profile says it shorter: "No to AIPAC: don't even ask." (Threads) He reported raising about $7,400, per Ballotpedia, and finished with 1.8% in a race Republican Sydney Gruters won. (Ballotpedia) He didn't win, but he proved you can run for Congress in Florida without anyone's check.
Linsey Grove, St. Petersburg City Council. AIPAC doesn't spend in city council races, so this isn't an AIPAC fight. But it's the same lesson about money. Grove was outraised, about $68,000 to her opponent's $81,000, and won District 6 with 55% on a grassroots coalition and a plan to let voters decide whether to break from Duke Energy. (Florida Politics, Tampa Bay Times)
The pattern is the same up and down the ballot: the candidates with the least money and the fewest strings got closer than anyone expected, or won.
AIPAC doesn't speak for Jewish Americans
AIPAC likes to present itself as the voice of the community. The polling says otherwise.
In a J Street poll this spring, 66% of Jewish voters said they don't want AIPAC using Republican-raised money to target Democrats who criticize Netanyahu's government. Only Orthodox and Republican Jewish voters backed it. (Washington Times) An independent Mellman Group survey found Jewish Democrats view AIPAC more unfavorably (37%) than favorably (29%). (The Jewish News / JTA)
The wider public has moved too. Six in 10 Americans now have an unfavorable view of Israel, up 20 points since 2022, Pew found. (JTA) Possible 2028 contenders Gavin Newsom and JB Pritzker have sworn off AIPAC money. (J. Weekly)
AIPAC's claims, and the record
These are AIPAC's and its defenders' claims. Here's what the record shows.
Their claim: AIPAC is bipartisan and simply backs pro-Israel candidates in both parties. (Washington Times)
The record: It does fund both parties, and that's the problem, not the defense. It took at least $12.76 million from Republican-aligned donors and spent it inside a Democratic primary to pick the Democrats' nominee. (Responsible Statecraft) "Bipartisan" here means one set of billionaires shopping in both parties' primaries.
Their claim: the J Street poll showing Jewish voters oppose AIPAC's primary spending was a "push poll." (Washington Times)
The record: A separate Mellman Group survey, which J Street didn't commission, found Jewish Democrats view AIPAC more unfavorably than favorably. (The Jewish News / JTA) Two different pollsters, same direction.
Their defenders' claim: it's unfair to single out AIPAC when everyone spends big. The Union for Reform Judaism said it was "deeply concerned" by efforts to single out AIPAC as a particularly malign influence. (J. Weekly)
The record: Others do spend big. Crypto's super PAC started the year with $191 million, and Elon Musk gave more than $445 million to Republicans, and we've criticized that money too. (WSWS, Newsweek) But AIPAC's machine runs ads that hide what they're about and reportedly routed money past the pre-election disclosure deadline. (Common Dreams, citing Sludge, Sludge) That's why it's singled out.
Our take
Follow the money and AIPAC stops looking like a grassroots lobby. It's a billionaire-funded machine that pushes a foreign government's agenda, drops Republican megadonor cash into Democratic primaries, runs ads that hide the issue they're about, and routes money around disclosure deadlines.
The party label doesn't matter. Any politician bought and paid for by AIPAC, Democrat or Republican, is the problem. And an AIPAC Democrat, whose primary was paid for with Republican megadonor money, owes those donors, not the voters who thought they were picking a Democrat. That's a Republican in sheep's clothing.
Florida can move forward without it. Michigan just showed this machine can be beaten. Angie Nixon showed how close you can get without a dime of it. Florida voters should ask every candidate, starting with their own party's leaders, one question before 2028: will you take AIPAC money? Then watch who squirms.