Let us start with the good news. During its spring meeting in New Orleans last week the DNC Resolutions Committee defeated three resolutions with anti-Israel undertones attached to them. One singled out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and its use of “dark money.” These resolutions demonstrate the continued mindset of progressives within the Democratic Party towards Israel and Israel-related issues. It’s important to note that the committee did pass a resolution generally opposing the use of dark money in politics, which should make one wonder why singling out one particular organization was necessary.

“Dark money” has become a catch-all phrase to signal corruption, illegitimacy, and moral decay. The outrage of progressive democrats against so-called dark money, however, is not evenly applied.

In today’s environment “dark money” does not really mean money hidden under the table. It is code for money we do not like. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the growing fixation on AIPAC.

The Facts They Do Not Want to Emphasize

There is a legitimate debate on the Democratic side and within the American Jewish community regarding AIPAC’s roll as a true mirror of Jewish American voters and how or where AIPAC “looks” for candidates on both sides of the aisle who exhibit support for Israel.

AIPAC has shifted its support rightward, there is no question about that. Specifically, its decision to endorse more than 100 Republican “election deniers” who voted against certifying the 2020 presidential election, leading to charges that the group prioritizes pro-Israel policy over the stability of the US democracy. Furthermore, AIPAC is frequently accused of weaponizing accusations of antisemitism to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli government actions, creating what some describe as a “chilling effect” on free debate in Washington.

In the 2026 midterm primaries, as in previous election cycles, AIPAC is endorsing Democratic candidates who support Israel, especially in races where progressive Democrats are running and showing strong numbers. Like it or not, this is a legitimate political move. Backing one candidate over another. That is how the American political system, flawed or not, operates.

So why single out AIPAC? If progressives who introduced this resolution were genuinely interested in cleaning up politics, they would go for a universal ban on “dark money “from all special interest groups. But that would be terribly inconvenient. Here is one example showcasing the hypocrisy:

The Sixteen Thirty Fund is a prominent 501(c)(4) “dark money” non-profit organization that acts as a fiscal sponsor for liberal and progressive causes across the US. It enables donors to fund advocacy projects, voter initiatives, and lobbying efforts anonymously. It has managed hundreds of millions of dollars, with funding coming from major donors often hidden from public view.

The Sixteen Thirty Fund spent $311 million in 2024 alone. It spent more than $400 million in 2020, making it one of the largest political money machines in American history. In some election cycles, just four donors provided most of its funding according to the Fund’s own reporting. Most importantly: those donors are often not publicly disclosed.

This is just one example of what dark money looks like. There are others. Many others. However, you did not see the Sixteen Thirty Fund named in the proposed resolution at the DNC meeting. Just AIPAC.

So Why the Obsession?

AIPAC is accomplishing something progressives cannot tolerate: their backed candidates are winning. Not always mind you, but in enough general elections against Republicans and Democratic primaries to make a difference. When AIPAC backs moderate Democrats and defeats progressive candidates, the response curdles into revenge.

If progressives were serious about dark money, they would be targeting:

The entire nonprofit funding ecosystem.

Donor anonymity loopholes.

The billion-dollar networks operating across multiple issue areas.

Instead, they laser-focus on one organization tied to one issue: Israel.

That is not reform of campaign financing laws. That is selective enforcement dressed up as moral clarity.

So, let us stop pretending.

Is This Is Just About Money? No it is not.

AIPAC is being singled out because of what it represents, not because of how it spends its resources. In today’s progressive climate, AIPAC represents a worldview that rejects the ideological framing on the progressive left.

And so “dark money” becomes the perfect political weapon. Not to fix a broken system, but to discredit a political adversary.

This Strategy Comes With Consequences

There is a line between legitimate criticism and something more corrosive.

When one pro-Israel organization is uniquely portrayed as corrupt, illegitimate, or dangerous despite operating within the same rules as everyone else, it raises uncomfortable questions. So, if progressives in the DNC want reform, then by all means, own up:

Ban or regulate all dark money—not just the kind you oppose.

Enforce universal transparency.

Apply the same standards to every political actor.

That would require something today’s political climate struggles to produce: consistency.

Consistency is dangerous because it exposes the truth: The campaign against AIPAC is not about cleaning up politics. It is about controlling it.

Democrats can be against dark money. AIPAC did not invent big money in politics. It did not design the system. It is far from the largest player in it. But it has become the most convenient scapegoat.

In a political movement increasingly defined by ideological purity, there is little tolerance for dissent and even less for those who fund it. So, the next time you hear outrage about “dark money,” ask a simple question:

Is this about transparency or about silencing one side of the debate?

Because right now, the answer is becoming harder to ignore.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)