The American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s super PAC has launched its first ads attacking Rep. Jamaal Bowman in the Democratic primary in New York’s 16th Congressional District. The ads claim that Bowman “has his own agenda” and refuses to work with President Joe Biden.

United Democracy Project, the AIPAC super PAC, bought its first set of ads this week for $1.9 million, disclosing that it planned to spend the money in a week, to oppose Bowman in the race against Westchester County executive George Latimer. The primary election takes place June 25.

Latimer, who was recruited to run by AIPAC and has received huge contributions directly from the group, has had nearly a million dollars of support from outside groups before AIPAC weighed in. Bowman also has outside support, but it’s a fraction of AIPAC’s spending so far for Latimer. Known as “independent expenditures,” outside groups can weigh in on elections but not in coordination with campaigns.

With the new AIPAC money to attack Bowman, outside groups in the race are spending nearly 10 times more in Latimer’s favor — with roughly $3 million total for Latimer and against Bowman, and Bowman supporters spending only about $285,000.

    • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      If it were any other country sinking this kind of money into politics, there would be hearings, investigations, sanctions, etc.

    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      Thanks 2010 SCOTUS for determining unrestricted SuperPAC money is 100% okay and unrestricted donations to a SuperPAC is 100% okay.

      Citizens United and SpeechNow solidified how fucked American elections are.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        While I think that the supreme Court is slanted shite, isn’t every ruling they make just a “that’s not what we think the law currently says” meaning we should instead be blaming Congress for not writing an updated law that clarifies what we want?