Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August 2009, page 27
Special Report
After a Desultory Decade, Legal Case Against AIPAC Shows Signs of Life
By Andrew I. Killgore
JUDGE JOHN Garrett Penn of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia “sat” on “our” case for seven years—from 1998, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) could classify the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as a “membership organization” which thus did not have to publish its income and outgo, until he was removed from the case by Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan on Sept. 28, 2007. In “our” case, seven former government officials sued the FEC for not requiring AIPAC, Israel’s principal lobby in the United States, to publish its sources of income and its expenditures. Our aim was to curb the power of the Israel lobby—frequently referred to simply as The Lobby, in deference to its unique political clout.
The original seven complainants were James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia; George Ball, the late former deputy secretary of state; Richard H. Curtiss, former chief inspector of the U.S. Information Agency (and executive editor of this magazine); Paul Findley, former Republican congressman from Illinois; Admiral Robert Hanks, former commander of the U.S. Navy Middle East Force; this writer, former U.S. ambassador to Qatar; and former U.S. military officer Orin Parker.
The case against AIPAC was launched in 1989 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which ruled in favor of the FEC and AIPAC. The complainants appealed to the District Court of Appeals, which ruled two-to-one against us. Then the full Court of Appeals ruled eight to two in our favor.
The FEC then appealed to the Supreme Court, which effectively ruled that AIPAC was a “membership organization” and thus immune from the requirement to disclose its finances.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. District Court, which was to examine the character of membership organizations. The complainants’ argument was that AIPAC was in essence a political committee, and thus required to publish its finances.
A “status conference” under new federal Judge Robert J. Leon was held May 12, 2009. Our lead attorney, Daniel Schember, told us that the discussions would involve procedure and not the substance of the case. The next hearing, scheduled for October, likely will be on the substance of the case.
The revived legal case against AIPAC could follow the same trajectory as the original case: i.e., end up in the Supreme Court. To the complainants (and, secretly, to AIPAC itself) it is transparent that AIPAC is a political committee. The complainants are likely to appeal any adverse decision. AIPAC surely will do the same.
Andrew I. Killgore is publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
