Blow to Pro-Israel Lobby in U.S.

by Paul Findley

I’m suppressing a shout of joy such would be premature but I cannot conceal a smile of satisfaction. In December, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying organization came under pressure from the U.S. courts.

The news gives me renewed hope, fleeting though it may be, for unbiased endeavors by the judicial system in examining the U.S.-Israeli relationship and enforcing campaign reforms.

The group under pressure is the heavily-financed American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a large tax-exempt organization based in Washington that is registered to lobby on behalf of Israel’s legislative interests and does so with great skill and effect.

By anyone’s standard, AIPAC is one of the most powerful and intimidating lobbies in Washington and certainly the most influential in foreign policy. In practical terms, it exists for one purpose: to assure the enactment of legislation favorable to Israel. To that end, it helps elect supporters of Israel and defeat its critics. It is as thoroughly political as Congress itself.

It suffered an historic and surprising setback recently when the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington ruled that the Federal Election Commission must re-examine its earlier decision to exempt AIPAC from reporting details of receipts and expenditures.

The commission had ruled in 1992 that AIPAC need not report these details. In a remarkable exhibition of political blindness, it concluded that AIPAC is not a political committee, asserting that its main activities are unrelated to candidates for election.

The court decision has personal appeal to me, because I am one of the petitioners who filed the original complaint in 1988 demanding that AIPAC be treated as a political committee. Among the other petitioners were former Undersecretary of State George W. Ball, since deceased, former U.S. Ambassadors James E. Akins and Andrew I. Killgore, former chief inspector of the U.S. Information Agency Richard H. Curtiss, and Rear Admiral Robert Hanks, former commander of the U.S. Navy’s Mid-east Task Force. I was inspired by my own experience. AIPAC played a major role in defeating my 1982 bid for election to a 12th term in the House of Representatives.

The commission ignored our complaint for three years. Only after we filed suit in court in 1992 demanding that the commission make a decision did it respond. It explicitly affirmed AIPAC’s exemption from reporting. We then appealed to the court to review the decision. By a vote of two-to-one, a panel from the Court of Appeals accepted the commission’s view, but the full court responded to our plea by reversing the decision by a vote of eight-to-two.

AIPAC, of course, will fight back, whether it appeals to the Supreme Court or not.

Unless the Supreme Court decides to review the decision, the commission must revisit its exemption of AIPAC and, under instruction of the court, must do so in light of the court’s opinion, not its own interpretation of the law. The court chided the commission for basing its decision on its own erroneous interpretation of a Supreme Court decision.

AIPAC, of course, will fight back with plenty of skilled legal talent, whether it appeals to the Supreme Court or not. It will do its best to prove that it does not contribute resources worth more than $1,000 annually in partisan elections. AIPAC probably has written no checks to candidates or their campaign committees, but there is ample evidence that it provides resources to candidates worth thousands of dollars a year.

For example, an internal AIPAC memorandum that Curtiss describes as “a smoking gun” instructed AIPAC staff members several years ago on what to say when talking with directors of political action committees (PACs) concerning contributions to candidates. PACs, unlike AIPAC, are required to report full financial details to the Federal Election Commission. The “smoking gun” bore handwritten notations of the author, Elizabeth Schrayer, who served at the time as AIPAC’s assistant director of political affairs. This memo alone establishes the significant role occupied by AIPAC in partisan campaigns.

AIPAC has publicly claimed full credit for a number of factors that contributed to my 1982 defeat. Thomas A. Dine, then executive director, summed up: “We beat the odds and defeated Findley.” He said AIPAC brought 150 students from the University of Illinois into my central Illinois district to “pound the pavements and knock on doors.” He added, “This is a case where the Jewish lobby made a difference.” By Jewish lobby, he clearly referred to AIPAC, the only organization registered as a lobby for Israeli interests.

“I Will Remember You”

Another example: George Mitchell of Maine, who later became Senate majority leader, received significant help from AIPAC in scoring an upset victory in 1982. After serving a brief appointive term in the Senate, he surprised the experts by winning election to a full six-year term. AIPAC arranged for 27 political action committees to help finance his campaign. After the votes were counted, Mitchell called Dine to thank him for the crucial help from AIPAC. He told Dine: “I will remember you.” Dine summarized AIPAC’s success in the 1982 voting in stirring terms: “American Jews are thus able to form our own foreign policy agenda.”

Two years later, Dine credited his organization with defeating three U.S. senators who ignored the lobby’s wishes.

One of the senators AIPAC claimed to have defeated was Charles H. Percy of Illinois, whose sin in AIPAC’s eyes was occasionally criticizing Israel. A Capitol Hill staffer and friend of many years who has a close knowledge of AIPAC’s organization told me that AIPAC devoted at least two-thirds of its entire resources in 1984 to defeat Percy.

After the votes were counted, Dine boasted to a Jewish audience in Canada: “All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And American politiciansthose who hold public positions now, and those who aspire got the message.”

Still another example: A political action committee was organized in Virginia during a workshop conducted by AIPAC. Members of the Federal Election Commission were surely aware of this partisan activity by AIPAC, but like almost every element in the Washington political scene, they are sensitive to lobby power. When finally forced to act, the commission scurried for a legal excuse, flimsy though it was, to rule in AIPAC’s favor. Commission members must have wrongly assumed that the district court, mindful of lobby influence, would not rock the pro-Israel boat.

Will the Federal Election Commission finally do its duty? More likely, it will wait until Congress enacts a loophole big enough to let AIPAC keep its financial dealings secret. Still, the court decision is a breath of fresh air for those distressed and cynical over the failure of our government to recognize the necessity for campaign reform.