ListNook

sugarlessdeathbear Mar 31, 2026 +87

There's an opportunity to position themselves as the party of the people and reject large entity donations of all sorts. Realistically in the landscape we've created that wouldn't work, but it would be a nice gesture.

87

MiddleAgedSponger Mar 31, 2026 +25

They have no desire to position themselves as the party of the people outside of campaign rhetoric.

25

TheDickWolf Mar 31, 2026 +3

It would work. The votes just aren’t as good an incentive as the money.

3

previouslyonimgur Mar 31, 2026 +4

No. That would be forcing them to basically tie both hands behind their backs.

4

SlowRunner2026 Apr 1, 2026 +3

So keep taking AIPAC blood money?

3

ennuiinmotion Apr 1, 2026 +2

Yeah this is a slam dunk if they were interested in helping real people and it would neutralize the very real Israel divide.

2

Ok-Two239 Mar 31, 2026 +31

okay, good. seems to be a bipartisan issue truthfully that politicians controlled by israel/aipac need to get voted out/lose their elections.

31

r4inbowgravity Mar 31, 2026 +12

It is a bipartisan issue in the exact opposite way that you describe. Both parties are hooked on Israel lobby money and will not be giving it up willingly. It’s only the public that is against it.

12

Sminahin Mar 31, 2026 +13

Do you really trust the DNC to actually do that instead of like...a superficial rebrand and pivoting from AIPAC to J Street? Or worse, a stealth AIPAC with a new name?

13

WanderingKing Mar 31, 2026 +10

Do I trust them? No Do I hope this will cause a schism with a big amount going to an actual labor party? Yes Is that realistic? Probably not, but this is my dream

10

Sminahin Mar 31, 2026 +6

Yeah...we're very on the same page here. Do you also have recurring nightmares where Dem establishment hard-pushes a milquetoast centrist for 2028 who wins off Trump backlash, but spoonfeeds America to the MTG/Tucker/Fuentes types in 2032?

6

Moccus Mar 31, 2026 -6

I have nightmares about a progressive winning the nomination and then getting absolutely pummeled in the general election, giving us at least 4 more years of a Trump clone.

-6

Sminahin Mar 31, 2026 +5

Well, we all have irrational dreams sometimes. Good thing that's completely implausible and in direct defiance of 34 years of electoral trends.

5

RimboTheRebbiter Mar 31, 2026 +12

This is the real issue, AIPAC has already shown it's more than happy to obfuscate its role in races by running unrelated issue ads using PACs with unrelated names. We saw a lot of that in Illinois. At a certain point voters need to adjust to making their decision basically solely on the candidate's position on Israel/Palestine. It's the only reliable issue that AIPAC will not smokescreen with.

12

A_Rogue_GAI Mar 31, 2026 +8

https://medium.com/@mdvrobert101/hakeem-jeffries-aipac-funneling-firestorm-6bd322abf591 Democratic leadership has been laundering AIPAC money so candidates can pretend they're not taking it while still getting the funds.

8

Sminahin Mar 31, 2026 +5

>At a certain point voters need to adjust to making their decision basically solely on the candidate's position on Israel/Palestine. It's the only reliable issue that AIPAC will not smokescreen with. Though a part of me is imagining an even wilder version of Mejia's NJ-11 election. Where the extremely pro-Israel, pro-AIPAC candidate said he wasn't comfortable with a "blank check" to Israel, so AIPAC ran all those negative ads about his ICE background to punish him...and got a "Gaza is genocide" progressive elected instead. The funniest timeline would involve AIPAC marking someone for political death and running a slew of "they were pro Gaza genocide" ads against them.

5

mps1729 Mar 31, 2026 +1

Well, not a fan of AIPAC, but J Street not a PAC, and is anything but “Israel right or wrong”, or is this just about singling out Jewish organizations that believe Israel has the right to exist.

1

Sminahin Mar 31, 2026 +2

Did you have a chance to listen to the new Peter Beinart interview with Wajahat Ali on this? It was a longer form conversation and I can't possibly do it justice, because Beinart has put more thought into this than most of us combined, but I think they had a very good discussion of the relative dynamics here. If interested, [here ](https://thelefthook.substack.com/p/why-cant-democratic-leadership-move)and [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6isjDLQxAs) for youtube version. Don't push me on defending specifics because I don't want to mangle it, but basically J-Street used to be far to the left of public sentiment on this issue, but now it's lagging way behind because of how fast the shift has occurred. And personally, I'm concerned that AIPAC-oriented strategists are going to pivot towards orgs like that, which are considered more palatable, as a way of performatively shifting their rhetoric while ceding the least ground possible. We may be seeing something like that right now with the West Bank Settler messaging shift. Where former AIPAC politicians are aligning towards J Street while condemning the West Bank settlers, but they conveniently omit that Israel (and the US) are sponsoring and actively promoting said settlers. So it's a toothless criticism that leads to complete inaction, but looks a bit better.

2

mps1729 Mar 31, 2026 +1

Ok. I just listened to the Beinart video. Setting aside any of my reactions to the rest of the video, it certainly didn’t trash J-Street, so I’m not sure what statement of mine you’re taking issue with.

1

Sminahin Mar 31, 2026 +2

Trash? I don't think I was looking to trash it. I much prefer J Street over AIPAC. But unless I'm wildly misremembering the video, they brought up the concern that it's easy to "retreat" from more extremist AIPAC positions into an empty "oh, I'm with J Street", but without changing behavior in any way. I don't dislike J Street inherently. But I'm very concerned that people are going to use it essentially as a strategic shield for inaction now that AIPAC is known to be unpopular. And that's the *exact* sort of annoying maneuvering I could see the DNC doing.

2

Moccus Mar 31, 2026 +4

J Street does have a PAC arm.

4

mps1729 Mar 31, 2026 +2

Great to hear, thanks!

2

generalissimo23 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Agreed. AIPAC and J Street are not equivalent. And while I don't personally follow the AIPAC line, the only way we ever get a solution in Israel-Palestine that doesn't end in a completed genocide or a mushroom cloud is one that has the buy in of folks that believe what J Street does. Even the pro-Palestinian lobby should be exploiting the cleavages in the pro-Israel community in order to get closer to the conditions for peace. Collapsing those differences by claiming the "Israel lobby" is uniform is pointless.

1

Sminahin Apr 1, 2026 +2

>Agreed. AIPAC and J Street are not equivalent. To be fair, that's not the claim. The concern I raised is that essentially AIPAC refugees and stealth-AIPAC is going to pivot to "we're with J Street now!" Softening rhetoric/vibes while continuing the exact same behavior unabated--just with a little more Collins-like concern. I think we're seeing that attempted right now, and you see it with how some former AIPAC-ers have pivoted to their messaging with the West Bank. They say settlers are wrong, but present them as some rogue, unanchored force that has nothing to do with the US or Israeli government. While continuing to support the exact same system that funnels that support into the settlers.

2

mps1729 Apr 1, 2026

It’s not pointless if your goal is Palestine from River to Sea (which says a lot about the motivation of people who say there’s no difference between J Street and AIPAC)

0

generalissimo23 Apr 1, 2026

Yeah, sadly. And as someone who thinks there's a big difference between a) seeing the injustice that was part of how Israel was founded and expanded and b) wanting harm to come to millions of Israeli citizens who are often powerless, blameless, or nearly powerless and blameless as against the decisions of their leaders. All the least-bad solutions eventually require negotiation, and none of them involve the expulsion of the Jewish people from all of historical Palestine.

0

dancingfordates Mar 31, 2026

So then do nothing.. do nothing because it is not perfect..🙄

0

Sminahin Mar 31, 2026 +2

You get that my concern is this will be a strategy used to continue doing nothing, right? Slightly different words, slightly different branding, exact same behavior.

2

Rock_mage Mar 31, 2026

Dude Republicans lost their job to Trump and they would still vote for him for a 5th time.

0

accurateboffer Mar 31, 2026 -2

How about those controlled by Qatar?

-2

SmartPea320 Mar 31, 2026 +6

You take foreign money or you don’t. Simple. If you take foreign or corporate funds. You should be voted out. Small dollars only way we get national healthcare

6

sedatedlife Mar 31, 2026 +9

Unfortunately too many of the likely presidential candidates are still pro Israel and they might not take AIPAC money but will still arm and protect Israel. Buttigieg, Newsom, Whitmer, Shapiro, Beshear will all continue the status quo with Israel. edit: I have no doubt i am missing names The only two i know that will hold Israel accountable is AOC and Khanna. Pritzker might slightly.

9

Syrairc Mar 31, 2026 +5

The problem is AIPAC-adjacent Super PACs just campaign AGAINST you in that case. It's literally a protection racket.

5

omerome83 Mar 31, 2026 +9

Not just AIPAC, but any AIPAC aligned/adjacent organizations or donors. They all need to be rejected as well.

9

cwk415 Mar 31, 2026 +8

Exactly. AIPAC is on to the fact that they're toxic and a liability so now they're funneling money through phony progressive ***sounding*** corporations that were incorporated just days or weeks prior. ETA: "Much of AIPAC’s spending came from two newly formed groups — Elect Chicago Women and Affordable Chicago Now." Source: https://news.wttw.com/2026/03/18/aipac-claims-credit-miller-bean-victories-and-abughazaleh-amiwala-defeats

8

ManyFragrant3139 Mar 31, 2026 +6

Gonna be pathetic if they can't even get this passed, especially when there's about 15 other front organizations that are also pro-Israel but with liberal window dressing.

6

ford7885 Mar 31, 2026 +8

I could write this resolution with one sentence: *If you take AIPAC money, you are a f****** useless traitor to both your country and the Democratic party, a slave to a genocidal foreign power.* Nothing else really needs to be said about it.

8

accurateboffer Mar 31, 2026 -6

You seem to be confused, misinformed, or just lying. https://apnews.com/article/european-union-condemn-hamas-human-shields-2c0d1c04cb38fc4acce37d8d624e1a3f

-6

accurateboffer Mar 31, 2026 -15

But taking cash from Qatar and Iran, who both despise the US, is just fine? Your swastika is showing.

-15

BigBassBone Mar 31, 2026 +9

Who said that was okay? It's not an either/or statement.

9

Ok_Character_5532 Mar 31, 2026 +8

Do you realize the sheer magnitude of money that AIPAC is injecting into our elections, and how many successful campaigns and challengers they’ve been behind? They act in the interests of another country, yet hold a massive portion of influence on our domestic politics. That doesn’t bother you?

8

accurateboffer Mar 31, 2026 -7

Muslim nations have bought far more politicians and universities than AIPAC. Muslim nations have spent far more than AIPAC in going after the west. The same Muslim nations that scream, “death to America.”

-7

Shelleyscase Mar 31, 2026 +4

Can you provide evidence that "Muslim nations have bought far more politicians and universities than AIPAC"?

4

accurateboffer Mar 31, 2026 -7

Do something unusual. Do the work yourself. Qatar, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and others have long been implicated. I found a ton of info doing a simple AI search. Too much to copy and paste. News accounts of Islamist cash to NGO’s and universities are also easily searchable. The other aspect is that Israel is an ally. The Muslim world largely hates the US and west.

-7

HuttStuff_Here Apr 1, 2026 +2

> I found a ton of info doing a simple AI search. Lol. So you didn't do any research.

2

greywarden2294 Mar 31, 2026 +4

So, to be clear, you “did your own research” by not doing the research yourself but having AI (which has the proven capacity to do worse research than a barely literate school child). And then, from the research, which again you didn’t do, it was too much effort to highlight and hit CTRL+C and CTRL+V. Got it. Follow up question: does this level of effort permeate everything you do, or just to creating whataboutism arguments on Listnook?

4

Chemical-Fault-7331 Mar 31, 2026 +2

If we were to ever get a truly progressive President, could they designate AIPAC as a terrorist organization? Then, they would not be allowed to do any funding to congressional representatives / senators?

2

contude327 Mar 31, 2026 +2

Reject anyone who accepts money from Israel.

2

TheDickWolf Mar 31, 2026 +2

The DNC is a major corporation. People mistake its priorities. Making money is what’s important. Wining elections is incidental.

2

Describing_Donkeys Mar 31, 2026 +1

Something from the DNC I strongly approve of. Please more of this.

1

RamonaQ-JunieB Mar 31, 2026 +1

Sounds good to me

1

Fit_Smile1146 Mar 31, 2026 +1

Everyone needs to reject their money

1

TheDickWolf Mar 31, 2026 +1

If the DNC wanted to win more than the money theyd have done this already.

1

trash-juice Mar 31, 2026 +2

Make it so, defund all foreign pacs, starting with the most notorious

2

r4inbowgravity Mar 31, 2026 +1

The democratic party leaders are in their positions almost entirely because of Israel lobby funding. Why would they ever allow it to stop?

1

RoseHazee Mar 31, 2026 +1

It’s a bold move to reject AIPAC funding this could signal a shift in how Democrats approach foreign influence.

1

AlongCameDorian Mar 31, 2026 +1

Imo, at best, AIPAC will remain to be scaled back and symbolically rejected while the cash is just routed through other organizations.

1

FlirtBerryy Mar 31, 2026

This resolution puts Democratic leaders in a tough position taking a stand on AIPAC’s influence could have big political repercussions.

0

omerome83 Mar 31, 2026 +7

You mean the fact that the electorate would actually start liking and believing in Democratic leadership again? I'll take it.

7

mps1729 Mar 31, 2026 -6

Not a fan of AIPAC, but I can’t think of any explanation for a resolution singling out this one single PAC that doesn’t involve the word Jew, so hard pass unless the resolution includes problematic PACs more generally.

-6

C-c-c-comboBreaker17 Mar 31, 2026 +6

Can you name another foreign PAC that spends as much money on US elections as AIPAC? Especially one from a country currently invading all of their neighbors?

6

mps1729 Mar 31, 2026 -2

AIPAC is domestic funded by Americans, but a better example of foreign funding would be money flowing from the Gulf states. Again, I don’t agree with AIPAC, but the singling out of it cannot be explained without a gross double standard, which we should be up in arms against, yet almost all the comments are supporting.

-2

VelvetSnaccc Mar 31, 2026 -1

I wonder how this will impact relationships with key donors and allies this is a significant crossroads.

-1

accurateboffer Mar 31, 2026 -1

Some good news regarding Palestinian terrorism. They’re going to have to pay. A U.S. appeals court has reinstated a $655.5 million judgment against the Palestinian Authority and the PLO for their role in terror attacks that killed and injured American citizens during the Second Intifada. The key shift: A new U.S. law allows courts to claim jurisdiction if entities continue policies like “martyr payments” to terrorists and their families. The court ruled: By continuing those payments, the PA and PLO effectively accepted U.S. jurisdiction — making the original verdict enforceable. After 20+ years of legal battles, the case is no longer in limbo.

-1

accurateboffer Mar 31, 2026 -5

I’d rather expose people taking money from Islamists like CAIR.

-5

BigBassBone Mar 31, 2026 +6

CAIR is not Islamist, though.

6

mps1729 Mar 31, 2026 +2

Both groups are problematic, so why a resolution singling out one?

2

accurateboffer Mar 31, 2026 -1

Because CAIR is a Muslim brotherhood entity devoted to spreading Islam in the US. Israel is an ally.

-1

Dnc Resolution To Reject Aipac Funding Puts Democratic Leaders In The Hot Seat | The symbolic resolution could force Democrats to take a stand on the millions the increasingly toxic AIPAC spends on Democratic primaries.

💬 Send a Message

68 Comments