Senate Race Highlights AIPAC’s Influence and Democratic Divisions
In South Haven, Michigan, Senate candidate Haley Stevens focuses on manufacturing and opposing former President Donald Trump. She claims to be the Democrat best positioned to win the state. However, she says little about the pro-Israel group spending millions to support her campaign.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and related entities have invested close to $30 million to back Stevens. This marks their largest investment in a single race. Their goal is to defeat progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed in the upcoming primary. Stevens avoids directly mentioning the group despite its significant impact on the race. During a campaign event, she talked extensively without naming AIPAC. She briefly mentioned Israel, expressing a desire for U.S. and Israeli collaboration in rebuilding Gaza.
Stevens stated, “Anyone who supported me is supporting me because of my dedication to the people of Michigan.” This response underscores how contentious AIPAC has become within Democratic circles amid differing views over U.S. support for Israel.
AIPAC aims to elect lawmakers who bolster the U.S.-Israel relationship and advocate policies enhancing both nations’ security. Inquiries into AIPAC’s influence were met with no comment from the organization or its super PAC, the United Democracy Project. In Michigan, home to the largest Arab American community in the U.S., the stakes are high. El-Sayed’s supporters frame the race as a test of whether grassroots efforts can overcome major financial backing.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, campaigning for El-Sayed, emphasized, “It’s an opportunity to show that things other than money can win in America.” Stevens has spent a hefty $1 million on advertising, but her backers, including A Stronger Michigan, have injected around $50 million. A Stronger Michigan alone contributed $12 million, keeping donor identities confidential.
El-Sayed criticizes Stevens for serving as a “mouthpiece” for big donors, including AIPAC. His campaign stresses the outsized influence of money in politics. Senator Bernie Sanders, rallying for El-Sayed, echoed this criticism. Stevens, advocating “comprehensive campaign finance reform,” distances herself from the relentless ads funded by AIPAC. These ads, while highlighting her manufacturing work, omit mentions of AIPAC or Israel.
Former Rep. Andy Levin, who lost to Stevens in a previous primary, noted, “AIPAC’s spending influences without transparency.” Michigan’s political landscape reflects a stark divide on Israel-New tensions arise amid large Jewish and Muslim populations.
Stevens, a staunch pro-Israel advocate, has offered critical views on Israeli politics. She criticized Prime Minister Netanyahu for failing to ensure safety or move towards peace, implicating him in endangering Jews globally. Conversely, El-Sayed, the son of Egyptian immigrants, labels Israel’s Gaza actions as “genocide.” He attributes AIPAC’s sway in politics as a direct cause of the ongoing conflict.
The war initiated post-Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attacks, resulting in Israeli retaliation. Should El-Sayed win, he would become the first Muslim U.S. senator. He confronted the issue of electability, attributing biases to his name and faith. El-Sayed’s campaign leans on grassroots momentum, asserting over 10,000 volunteers statewide, compared to Stevens’ “hundreds” in Michigan.
El-Sayed’s message is clear: the election centers on “many versus the money.” The broader Democratic context reveals crumbling support for Israel within the party, fueled by tensions post-Gaza conflict. Earlier attempts to block U.S. aid to Israel emphasize the party’s fracture, with prominent figures like Rep. Pat Ryan distancing from AIPAC.
In 2024, similar dynamics surfaced. Michigan’s Democratic Senate race involved activism against now-Sen. Elissa Slotkin’s stance on Gaza policies. Slotkin, keeping a previous distance from AIPAC, narrowly won against her Republican rival. The issue rifts Democrats, yet questions remain if these matters will affect broader voter decisions, as economic issues may bear more influence.