Connect with us

America

AIPAC super PAC pours millions into key Democratic primary races

Published

on

The United Democracy Project (UDP), the super PAC of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has directed nearly $2.5 million into a special election for the California seat formerly held by Representative Eric Swalwell, marking one of the group’s final targeted contests ahead of November.

The UDP spent approximately $2.5 million to campaign against state Senator Aisha Wahab, the favourite in the race, and to promote Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Board President Melissa Hernandez. The expenditure attracted significant attention, given that Wahab finished well ahead of Hernandez in the June special primary.

AIPAC links have also emerged as a central issue in two Democratic contests in Florida and New Hampshire, among the final states on the 2026 primary calendar. Intra-party friction over the role of money in politics and questions regarding the extent to which US support for Israel should continue remain heavyweight concerns ahead of the November elections.

“I wish that AIPAC would realise that, for better or worse, it has become a lightning rod, and that is helping less, unfortunately, not just themselves, but the cause they advocate for,” said a national Democratic strategist who has previously worked with the UDP.

An AIPAC spokesperson disputed this assessment, pointing out that more than 250 candidates backed by the group have won their primaries.

“Our community of 7 million Americans is focused on helping pro-Israel Democratic and Republican candidates win in November,” the spokesperson added.

UDP spends millions in California’s 14th District

AIPAC’s super PAC is making a multi-million-dollar expenditure in California’s 14th Congressional District, previously represented by Swalwell, who resigned following sexual assault allegations that he denied.

Wahab and Hernandez are facing off in two separate races this year. The first, taking place on Tuesday, will select a representative to complete the remainder of Swalwell’s term. The second race will be held in November for a full two-year term.

Wahab finished 26 percentage points ahead of Hernandez in the special primary. The margin in the primary for the full term was 21 percentage points in Wahab’s favour.

Despite these margins, the UDP has spent roughly $2.5 million to date to boost Hernandez and campaign against Wahab. A separate group called Bold America, which received funds from the UDP and was established by former members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, has also spent approximately $1.8 million.

Wahab opposes unconditional aid to Israel. Last year, she introduced a resolution in the California legislature calling for an end to the Israel-Hamas war.

Wahab has also described the war in Gaza as a “genocide”. Hernandez, speaking at a candidate forum this spring, declined to use the same term, though she condemned “the destruction in Gaza”.

Wahab asserted that she has been targeted due to racism and bias.

“Power brokers in Washington also have a need to control every voice on highly critical votes,” Wahab told The Hill. “I have been very clear about my stance on human rights and doing what is best for the American people.”

UDP spokesperson Patrick Dorton, in a statement to The Hill, described Wahab’s assertions as “100% absurd”. Dorton stated that the group supports members of both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Bold America did not respond to a request for comment from The Hill.

Hernandez, in a statement to The Hill, pointed to her campaign’s “thousands of supporters” and said that “no single supporter dictates her agenda”.

“My opponent wants to turn this race into a national issue, whereas the race should actually be about how best to serve the voters in the East Bay and Tri-Valley,” Hernandez said.

The spending in the race attracted particular notice after the UDP spent tens of millions of dollars earlier this month in the Michigan Senate primary to support Representative Haley Stevens, who narrowly lost to progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed.

“In many cases, as a political operative, my advice was that we shouldn’t get into this specific race, because we would become the issue itself and… we would harm the candidate we were trying to help,” said Garry South, a veteran California strategist who has worked on independent expenditure campaigns in the real estate sector.

“Frankly, I think AIPAC has reached that point,” South added.

FEC complaints surface in California race

The race has intensified in recent days. A supporter of Hernandez filed a complaint against Wahab with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

According to the complaint, Wahab’s state Senate committee gave money to a county party organisation, which then used a portion of those funds to support Wahab’s congressional campaign. The complaint alleged that external activities supporting Wahab constituted an “illegal and unreported in-kind contribution”.

Wahab told The Hill that her campaign had not received any notice from the FEC. The Alameda County Democratic Central Committee said in a statement that it was aware of the complaint but maintained that its activities complied with “federal election laws”.

“Until the FEC actually takes action, this is nothing more than a political allegation floated by our opponents,” Wahab said.

According to a report by KQED, Wahab’s campaign also plans to file a complaint with the FEC regarding a series of social media posts targeting the candidate, which Wahab characterized as defamatory.

The report stated that the complaint will request an investigation into whether the online activity was conducted in a coordinated manner to influence the election outcome and whether the activity ought to have been officially reported.

AIPAC influence debated in Florida race

The California contest is not the only election on Tuesday where AIPAC’s influence has surfaced as an issue.

Oliver Larkin, an activist and democratic socialist who is an outspoken critic of AIPAC and unconditional US aid to Israel, is running against Representative Jared Moskowitz in Florida’s redrawn 25th Congressional District.

The district, which covers parts of Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward counties, is viewed as a swing territory that could be won by either party. AIPAC is supporting Moskowitz in the race.

In an interview with The Hill, Larkin pointed to the war in Gaza and AIPAC’s support for “this deeply disastrous foreign policy”. Larkin said the group had also “supported 109 Republican insurrectionists in the 2022 midterms”.

Larkin further noted that the Israel-Hamas war, particularly its disproportionate influence on the 2024 presidential race, sits “at the centre of many struggles within the Democratic Party over the influence of money in politics”.

Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, described AIPAC as an “easy target for the far left, especially since the targeting is mutual”.

In an interview with The Hill, Soifer said that some candidates have turned debates over military aid to Israel into “politically convenient talking points”, but added that these do not resonate “everywhere”.

Moskowitz declined an invitation from the Sun Sentinel Editorial Board to participate in a joint interview with Larkin.

“I do not believe it is appropriate to share a platform with a candidate who has repeatedly embraced the support of individuals and organisations that circulate antisemitic rhetoric and hostility toward the Jewish community,” Moskowitz wrote.

Larkin, who has engaged with figures including the controversial leftist Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, acknowledged that such individuals “do not always use the most politically correct language”.

However, Larkin added: “Cherry-picking these statements to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism does a disservice to the nuanced critique articulated by individuals like Hasan Piker.”

AIPAC backing creates new divide in New Hampshire

Next month’s Senate primary in New Hampshire has also highlighted differing stances within the Democratic Party regarding AIPAC and its allies.

Karishma Manzur, a Democratic scientist, criticized Representative Chris Pappas—the favourite running to replace Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen—for taking money from special interest groups, including AIPAC.

Pappas is listed among the supported candidates on AIPAC’s website.

Manzur, who opposes unconditional aid to Israel and has described the war in Gaza as a “genocide”, said: “Any candidate or lawmaker who takes even $1 from corporations or corporate PACs is no longer a public servant; they are merely a contractor for their client.”

Pappas’s campaign maintained that Manzur exaggerated the amount of support the candidate received from AIPAC’s PAC. The campaign also stated that Pappas does not accept donations from corporate PACs and noted that he introduced a bill aimed at limiting election spending by foreign nationals.

America

Iran war costs US economy $265 billion as household burden mounts

Published

on

The economic toll of the conflict on the US has reached $265 billion in the roughly eight months since the start of joint US and Israeli strikes against Iran.

According to calculations by Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi, this amount imposes an additional burden of approximately $2,000 on the budget of an average American family.

Sharing data on his X account on Tuesday, Zandi noted that the cost per household since the war began stands at about $2,000, with nationwide economic losses reaching $265 billion.

This estimate is seven times higher than the direct military spending figure reported to Congress by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, which covers the period between the start of the strikes on 28 February and the end of July.

While Hegseth’s official figures cover only direct military operations, the conflict’s impact on global markets and oil prices is driving up inflation and day-to-day living costs, deepening the real burden on household budgets.

Fuel and heating costs strain budgets

Energy items account for the largest share of the additional expenses facing American households. The surge in fuel, home heating, and transport costs has generated an extra bill of about $1,100 per family.

Zandi noted that the price of regular petrol, which hovered just below $3 per gallon before the war, has risen to $4.37, while diesel has exceeded $6 and jet fuel has nearly doubled.

Pointing out that a marked rise in residential heating fuel costs is driving up spending as winter approaches, Zandi said current price levels continue to add roughly $50 a week to family budgets.

Researchers at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs are also tracking the impact of rising fuel prices on consumers.

According to data from the institute, US consumers have paid an extra $133.3 billion for fuel products since 28 February.

During this period, petrol prices rose by more than 46% and diesel climbed by over 70%. Of this additional burden borne by consumers, $73.5 billion stemmed from petrol and $59.8 billion from diesel. This calculation translates into an extra cost of $1,017.76 per household nationwide.

Loan interest rates and operational outlays inflate the bill

Another decisive factor in the economic picture has been the rise in interest rates.

Zandi reported that climbing interest rates have created a cost of approximately $540 per household.

Fixed-rate home mortgage rates, which stood below 6% before the war, have climbed to roughly 7.5%, Zandi said, adding that long-term rates have also increased substantially.

Direct military operations, meanwhile, represent a cost of $360 per household based on Pentagon data.

However, experts point out that repair, maintenance, and equipment replenishment expenses are excluded from the published figures, meaning actual military spending on the ground could exceed Pentagon estimates.

Linda Bilmes, a war budget specialist who teaches public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, said she is certain the conflict’s bill will reach $1 trillion, adding, “Maybe we’re already there.”

Trump defends spending as public support drops

The mounting economic strain is fuelling backlash against the military campaign and US President Donald Trump’s handling of the process.

A Pew Research Centre survey conducted on 28 September-4 October among 5,062 adults revealed that 65% of Americans disapprove of the way Trump is handling the Iran strikes.

The proportion of those who consider the use of military force justified dropped four percentage points compared with March, falling to 34%.

Emphasizing that the total cost has wiped out roughly half of the average American household’s income gains over the past eight months, Zandi said it is natural for public support for the war to remain so low.

According to figures shared by pollster Nate Silver, Trump’s net approval rating has tumbled to an all-time low of minus 23.5 points.

Defending the military intervention against Iran, Trump described the costs as “a small price to pay to keep our country and the world safe.”

With the surging cost of living piling pressure on Republicans ahead of the November midterm elections, Trump announced last month that he would provide a $5,000 cash payment to every adult in the country if his party maintains its majorities in both chambers of Congress.

Continue Reading

America

US fines Bank of America $1.21bn over money laundering and sanctions

Published

on

The US Department of the Treasury has imposed a total of $1.21 billion in financial penalties on Bank of America, one of the country’s largest financial institutions, for violating anti-money laundering legislation and sanctions regimes.

According to a statement published by the department, the bank was accused of failing to report suspicious transactions in a timely manner, failing to monitor financial movements that posed national security risks, and providing services to clients on sanctions lists.

Decisions by units operating under the Treasury Department accounted for the largest components of the penalty package.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) penalised the bank for failing to report more than $5 billion in suspicious transactions in a timely manner.

More than $1 billion of that amount was noted to be directly linked to national security risks, including the operations of China-based money laundering networks.

Under the settlement reached with FinCEN, Bank of America admitted to willfully violating the Bank Secrecy Act. The bank was required to conduct an additional review covering suspicious transactions and to assess the effectiveness of its financial monitoring system.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) separately fined the bank $750 million over structural deficiencies in its financial monitoring system.

The OCC stated that the bank failed to maintain adequate oversight over trillions of dollars in fund transfers and did not remedy the violations despite a formal notice served in December 2024.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) also stepped in over millions of dollars in transactions carried out in breach of sanctions regulations. OFAC reached an $11.6 million settlement agreement with Bank of America concerning 475 distinct potential sanctions violations.

Assessing the matter, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, “The actions taken today send a clear message that even the largest financial institutions are not above the law.”

UK fines banks over breaches of Russia sanctions

Alongside the penalty decision in the US, similar sanctions scrutiny is being carried out across European financial centres.

In September, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), an agency of the UK Treasury, fined Citibank’s London branch (CBNA London) £4.7 million for violating sanctions targeting Russia.

According to findings by the British regulator, between February and November 2022 following the outbreak of armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the bank processed 970 payments worth a combined £19.7 million, circumventing asset freezes and other restrictions. The government stated that the majority of the violations were linked to corporate accounts owned or controlled by sanctioned individuals. Russia, meanwhile, describes sanctions imposed by Western nations as illegal.

During the spring, OFSI also fined the London branch of Germany’s Deutsche Bank £165,000 ($221,000) for transferring funds to the Russian online streaming platform Okko.

Over the same period, the watchdog imposed a £390,000 fine on Apple’s European entity, Apple Distribution International (ADI), for a similar violation.

Continue Reading

America

Musk boosts Republican midterm funding despite pledge to curb spending

Published

on

The world’s richest person, Elon Musk, has donated $276 million over the past three months to political action committees and conservative organizations supporting Republicans ahead of the upcoming US midterm elections.

The latest transfer brings the total midterm donations from Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX, to $366 million.

First reported by The New York Times, the figures were confirmed to The Hill by a spokesperson for America PAC, which Musk founded. These latest expenditures establish Musk as the largest known donor of the 2026 midterms.

The bulk of Musk’s financial backing between July and September was directed towards congressional races.

The US billionaire transferred $158 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC supporting Republican Senate candidates, and $20 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, which finances House Republicans.

Millions divided among various committees

Musk, who provided more than $76 million during the period to America PAC, an entity he founded during the 2024 election cycle, also funded state-level contests.

The businessman transferred $10 million to the Lone Star Liberty PAC, which supports Texas Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton, while donating $10 million to the Republican Governors Association and $2 million to the Republican Attorneys General Association.

In statements given to The New York Times and confirmed by The Hill, America PAC spokesperson Andrew Romeo argued that if Democrats take control in Washington and win critical state races, the country faces the risk of becoming one with indefensible borders.

Romeo said the investments enable the Republican apparatus to deliver its messages to voters.

Field spending continues despite talk of retreat

Musk, who kept his distance from politics for many years, entered the arena by spending hundreds of millions of dollars for Donald Trump during the 2024 election.

Accompanying Trump on campaign trails, Musk subsequently took charge of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which sparked controversy through federal employment and budget cuts.

Musk stepped down from his White House role in late May 2025 and remained politically quiet for months following a public rift with Trump.

After announcing last May that he would sharply scale back his political spending, Musk told The Economist in a July interview that he had become overly involved in politics and had gone too far.

Despite those remarks, Musk pressed ahead with political activity in July by authorizing America PAC to spend between $100 million and $120 million on a fresh field operation aimed at driving conservative voter turnout in the 2026 midterms.

Having repaired ties with Trump following their public spat, Musk joined the US president on an official visit to China in May and was also present during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington last month.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey