AIPAC didn't always spend on campaigns. Now it faces criticism over money in politics

**Both Sides, One Feed.** AIPAC’s evolution from a quiet, insider lobbying outfit to a campaign-spending juggernaut is the story of American politics in microcosm. For decades, the group’s power was built on relationships and bipartisan consensus. Now, it’s built on a super PAC war chest. That shift didn’t happen in a vacuum—it happened because the ground rules of the game changed, and AIPAC simply adapted faster than its critics would like. This matters because the criticism isn’t really about Israel policy anymore. It’s about the mechanism. On the left, progressives see AIPAC’s spending as a cudgel to crush primary challengers who dare question the status quo. On the right, well, the same playbook is standard practice, just with different players. The signal here is clear: foreign policy has fully merged with domestic culture war, and the cost of entry to Congress just ticked up another notch. The irony is that AIPAC’s founding ethos was to keep Israel above the partisan fray. By diving headfirst into the money primary, they’ve guaranteed it will never be seen that way again—by either side. They traded the map for the compass. Now everyone’s using it to find the exit. ```json {"key_insight":"AIPAC's pivot to super PAC spending reflects a broader systemic shift where foreign policy consensus has been weaponized into domestic primary ammunition.","confidence":88} ```