Sharp Dip in Pro-Israel PAC Donations Reflects Drop in 1994 PAC Revenues

By Richard H. Curtiss

Pro-Israel political action committees (PACs) spent less money in direct donations to congressional candidates in the 1994 elections than in any previous election since 1982. Leaders of most national pro-Israel organizations and of the network of PACs established by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) were deeply disappointed at the drop in PAC collections and the election results, which included both a Republican landslide and a reduction of Jewish membership from 10 to 9 in the Senate and 31 to 23 in the House of Representatives.

The Republican takeover of both the Senate and House occurred despite efforts by some pro-Israel PACs to thwart it and the "Contract with America" advanced by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA). The pro-Israel lobby is particularly opposed to the "Contract's" balanced budget, term limitation, line-item veto and campaign finance reform proposals. Of 358 Senate and House candidates who received 1994 election cycle donations from pro-Israel PACs, 246 were Democrats, 109 were Republicans, and three were Democratic Farmer Labor candidates.

The drop in donations by pro-Israel PACs resulted from a seemingly sharp drop in funds actually collected by the PACs. They received only $6,084,639 in the 1993-1994 election cycle, the lowest figure since 1984 and less than half of the whopping $14,015,509 they collected in the 1991-1992 cycle. Therefore, pro-Israel PAC donations to campaign funds of congressional candidates in the 1994 elections totaled only $2,529,573, barely more than half of the $4,704,051 the same PACs donated in the 1992 cycle (see accompanying box).

These anomalies may represent a shift in AIPAC tactics as much as real changes in collection and donation patterns, however. All PAC directors complained throughout 1993 and 1994 about a lessening of interest among American Jews in supporting Israel following the signing by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Declaration of Principles of Peace at the White House on Sept. 13, 1993. Some Jewish supporters of Israel apparently believed the century-old dispute between Israelis and Palestinians was over. Others disapproved of any Israeli government that proposed to trade land for peace. For both reasons, donations declined.

Some pro-Israel donors also had been shocked and alienated by the huge discrepancy in the 1992 cycle between collections by pro-Israel PACs and their actual donations to candidates. While the PACs pleaded that much of the money collected was spent in mailings to raise further funds and for get-out-the-vote drives, critics pointed to high overhead costs—particularly the inflated salaries of some PAC directors and their staffs, and expensive contracts for consulting and mailing services that PAC donors complained could have been accomplished by volunteers.

The result was significant downsizing of both director salaries and paid staffs, and the actual closing of at least 11 pro-Israel PACs in 1993 and 1994. Of 116 pro-Israel PACs that have been active at one time or another since 1976, only 76 were active in the 1992 elections and, on the basis of filings to date, apparently no more than 61 were active in the 1994 elections.

That, however, is only one side of the story, and probably not the most significant part of it. In fact, with continuing talk about campaign finance reform, including support by Senate Republicans for abolishing PACs altogether, there was a conscious effort by AIPAC-affiliated PACs to lower their profiles.

AIPAC leaders have boasted for years that for every dollar donated by their chain of PACs, at least one additional dollar reaches AIPAC-endorsed candidates via direct donations from individual AIPAC or pro-Israel PAC members. In the past these individual donations were directed by AIPAC to friendly candidates who had pledged not to take PAC donations, or who had other reasons for concealing their support by the Israel lobby.

Keeping a Low Profile

In the 1994 cycle, the pro-Israel PACs devoted greater efforts than ever before to generating such individual donations in order to avoid exposure by public-interest election monitors like this magazine. For example, one pro-Israel PAC, which had expected members to bring or mail a $100 check to each monthly meeting, changed its procedure during the leadup to the 1994 election. Members were instructed to break their $100 monthly contribution into three checks: One for $50 was to be made out to the PAC and two others for $25 each were to be signed by the donor but the recipient's name was to be left blank. The PAC then could fill in the name of an individual congressional candidate. These checks then were "bundled" by the PAC, meaning they were delivered personally to the congressional candidate by a member of the PAC so that the candidate would understand they were directly connected to following the AIPAC line on U.S. foreign aid and other issues relevant to Israel. Nevertheless, the recipient could record such "bundles" of checks as donations from private individuals rather than from pro-Israel PACs.

Federal Election Commission rules permit a PAC to donate up to $10,000 to a single candidate in each election cycle, and an individual to donate up to $2,000 to a single candidate in each election cycle. Although the candidate knows what motivates each individual donation, this is hidden from anyone checking FEC files. Only the names of individual donors are available, and even those are not recorded for donations below $250.

Over the years, AIPAC and like-minded Jewish organizations have changed tactics to evade campaign finance restrictions and public scrutiny while continuing to exert tremendous influence on U.S. Middle East policy. Initially, this influence was wielded through speaking invitations to congressmembers and challengers deemed friendly to Israel. Honoraria ranging from $500 to $5,000 were paid for talks before Jewish organizations or synagogues. In many cases the texts were prepared by AIPAC speech writers.

In some cases the recipient didn't even have to deliver the speech in person. It might be read for the congressmember by a member of the host organization. There were allegations that some of the honoraria checks were for speeches or appearances that didn't take place at all.

Most important, however, was the fact that the congressmember's constituents wouldn't know that such transactions were taking place. There was no mechanism to alert voters that their representatives in Congress were speaking before B'nai B'rith, American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee and other audiences, and being paid handsomely for each talk.

This method of controlling congressional votes on Middle East matters largely ended in 1978, when limitations were imposed on the total income members of Congress could earn. It was to circumvent this campaign financing reform that PACs were invented to make donations directly into congressional campaign funds. However, while most special interests had a PAC, or even two or three, the Israel lobby outdid itself by creating whole armadas of such PACs. In 1978 there were three. In 1980 there were 10. By 1990 there were 116, of which 95 were active in that election cycle. These numbers remain unique in American political life. Even the savings and loan industry, which also generated a number of individual PACs en route to creating the bankruptcy and insolvency scandals that to date have cost U.S. taxpayers more than $200 billion dollars, didn't create a network approaching these numbers.

What also was unique about pro-Israel PACs, however, was the proliferation of deceptive names. In 1984, when members of the AIPAC board of directors returned to their own communities to found PACs that all would respond to AIPAC recommendations, none of the PACs were given names that in any way reflected their interest in the Middle East, Israel or Judaism. Of the two or three thousand PACs that have been founded over the years by companies, industries, trade associations, trade unions and other special interests, virtually none other than pro-Israel PACs have chosen names that mask their true purposes or affiliations.

It was only after the deceptively named pro-Israel PACs were unmasked in 1984 by Edward Roeder's Sunshine News Service, the National Association of Arab Americans, Wall Street Journal investigative reporter John Fialka, Common Cause and this magazine that the tendency to hide the extent of the AIPAC-directed investment in congressional election campaigns began to evolve further through bundling rather than making direct PAC donations to friends of Israel on key Senate and House committees.

Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), the top 1994 recipient of pro-Israel PAC donations with $127,056 (giving him a career total of $417,306) was a member of both the Senate Budget Committee and of the defense and foreign operations subcommittees of the Senate Appropriations Committee. These positions provided him a key role in every stage of both military and economic aid for Israel. Senator Charles Robb, whose $111,872 in 1994 cycle donations made him Senate runner-up for the most pro-Israel PAC donations and gave him a career total of $147,872, held seats on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on the Near East and South Asian subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. These positions enabled him, too, to play a major role in furthering Israeli military and political interests.

The top House recipient, Sam Gejdenson (D-CT), won re-election in 1994 by 21 votes, making him literally beholden to the Israel lobby for his victory. A member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, he received $41,854 in the 1994 cycle, giving him a career total of $269,408. On the other hand, House donation runner-up Eric Fingerhut (D-OH), also a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, failed in his re-election campaign despite $33,990 from the pro-Israel PACs, which brought his career total to $51,390.

Richard H. Curtiss is the executive editor of the Washington Report.