U.S. Politics

[LondonLax]

23 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

When you feel like running a victory lap . . .

 

I don’t see the victory? Apparently AIPAC does not pay politicians and the money they are raising here is not ‘Jewish’ money, anyone can donate. It seems like they are correct with what they are saying in that message?

[bickster]

25 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I don’t see the victory? Apparently AIPAC does not pay politicians and the money they are raising here is not ‘Jewish’ money, anyone can donate. It seems like they are correct with what they are saying in that message?

OF course, it doesn't PAY politicians, it's a lobbying group. It's members, however, form public action committees (different pac) to support candidates and anyone thinking that isn't connected is off their rocker quite frankly

Yes anyone can donate, who is going to donate to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee do you imagine?

[HanoiVillan]

34 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I don’t see the victory? Apparently AIPAC does not pay politicians and the money they are raising here is not ‘Jewish’ money, anyone can donate. It seems like they are correct with what they are saying in that message?

'AIPAC does not pay politicians' is true, but doesn't cover the whole picture. AIPAC has a non-profit arm, called the 'American Israel Education Foundation' (AIEF) which has a budget of $80m and provides all-expenses-paid trips (they call them 'seminars') to Israel for American politicians of both parties, and also for business and military leaders, and other influential figures. This is stated on the organisation's (notably sparse) website:

'In addition to making grants for AIPAC programs, the Foundation funds educational seminars to Israel for members of Congress and other political influentials. These AIEF-sponsored trips help educate political leaders and influentials about the importance of the U.S. - Israel relationship through firsthand experiences in Israel, briefings by experts on Middle East affairs, and meetings with Israeli political elite.'

The monetary value of these in-kind benefits can be around $10k per head. The trips are tailored to the views of individual congresspeople, so Californian Dems who like tech and LGBTQ issues might go to some high-tech startups and see Tel Aviv's nightlife scene, while conservative Republicans will spend more time at religiously-significant sites and so forth. However, nearly everyone will meet senior people in the Israeli government for personal face-time. 

To be clear, this isn't illegal. But the notion that all of these people (many of whom are not particularly interested in, or motivated by, foreign policy debates) taking these trips has absolutely no effect on their views, seems to me to be for the birds. 

An interesting comparison here is Ian Paisley Jr, who received two paid holidays to Sri Lanka and then wrote a letter to David Cameron urging him to lobby against a UN investigation into possible war crimes in the country. Maybe he's uniquely weak-willed, and all of these American officials and politicians manage to be wholly unswayed by their trips. 

[LondonLax]

55 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

'AIPAC does not pay politicians' is true, but doesn't cover the whole picture. AIPAC has a non-profit arm, called the 'American Israel Education Foundation' (AIEF) which has a budget of $80m and provides all-expenses-paid trips (they call them 'seminars') to Israel for American politicians of both parties, and also for business and military leaders, and other influential figures. This is stated on the organisation's (notably sparse) website:

'In addition to making grants for AIPAC programs, the Foundation funds educational seminars to Israel for members of Congress and other political influentials. These AIEF-sponsored trips help educate political leaders and influentials about the importance of the U.S. - Israel relationship through firsthand experiences in Israel, briefings by experts on Middle East affairs, and meetings with Israeli political elite.'

The monetary value of these in-kind benefits can be around $10k per head. The trips are tailored to the views of individual congresspeople, so Californian Dems who like tech and LGBTQ issues might go to some high-tech startups and see Tel Aviv's nightlife scene, while conservative Republicans will spend more time at religiously-significant sites and so forth. However, nearly everyone will meet senior people in the Israeli government for personal face-time. 

To be clear, this isn't illegal. But the notion that all of these people (many of whom are not particularly interested in, or motivated by, foreign policy debates) taking these trips has absolutely no effect on their views, seems to me to be for the birds. 

An interesting comparison here is Ian Paisley Jr, who received two paid holidays to Sri Lanka and then wrote a letter to David Cameron urging him to lobby against a UN investigation into possible war crimes in the country. Maybe he's uniquely weak-willed, and all of these American officials and politicians manage to be wholly unswayed by their trips. 

Isn’t this how all US lobby groups work? 

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

 

Yes anyone can donate, who is going to donate to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee do you imagine?

Even if it were only Jewish people who donated, with no gentile sympathisers donating any money, why does that matter? Why is there a problem with ‘Jewish money’? 

[HanoiVillan]

12 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Isn’t this how all US lobby groups work? 

Well, with variations, yes. But then people don't accuse other people of racism for concluding that money or in-kind donations from the NRA or the National Association of Realtors might influence politicians. 

[bickster]

20 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Even if it were only Jewish people who donated, with no gentile sympathisers donating any money, why does that matter? Why is there a problem with ‘Jewish money’? 

lets call it "supporters of the state of Israel" money. It's the absolutely corrupt undue influence the state of Israel has over US Politics, mainly due to the ludicrous amounts of influence AIPAC and its associated PACs have over US Politicians on both sides

[blandy]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

When you feel like running a victory lap . . .

I agree with @LondonLax.

It's undoubtedly the case that Lobby groups seek to sway and influence...etc. It's possible that for some politicians, that Lobbying has an impact. Lobbying is absolutely not the same as "paying them". The system of Lobbying needs severely tightening up almost everywhere. Equally, for example, for some it is certain it has no impact at all. Yer man saint Jezza of the allotment shed - I doubt that he would be affected in his views, by Lobbying from APAIC, or that his views on Palestine are because of Lobbying from Palestinian or muslim support organisations.

So the difficulty here is attributing political views of politicans solely to "the money" (The Benjamins, as in Dollars). To say outright that they are basically holding their views only because they are corrupt and on the payroll of an Israel lobby. There's also the underlying hint that Jews use their money to buy people - she might not have meant that or even thought of it, but it's kind of there, unconsciously and that would be/is anti-semitic, wouldn't it?.

There's a whole lot of americans who view Israel as a strong ally and as a democracy surrounded by non-democratic nations and support Israel for those and other reasons. They don't hold those views for money. Saying they do, if they're politicians is wide of the mark.

 

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Well, with variations, yes. But then people don't accuse other people of racism for concluding that money or in-kind donations from the NRA or the National Association of Realtors might influence politicians. 

Of course the obvious converse to that point is to ask why Jewish lobbyists and their ‘Jewish money’ have been singled out as a particular problem. 

[bickster]

55 minutes ago, blandy said:

I agree with @LondonLax.

It's undoubtedly the case that Lobby groups seek to sway and influence...etc. It's possible that for some politicians, that Lobbying has an impact. Lobbying is absolutely not the same as "paying them". The system of Lobbying needs severely tightening up almost everywhere. Equally, for example, for some it is certain it has no impact at all. Yer man saint Jezza of the allotment shed - I doubt that he would be affected in his views, by Lobbying from APAIC, or that his views on Palestine are because of Lobbying from Palestinian or muslim support organisations.

So the difficulty here is attributing political views of politicans solely to "the money" (The Benjamins, as in Dollars). To say outright that they are basically holding their views only because they are corrupt and on the payroll of an Israel lobby. There's also the underlying hint that Jews use their money to buy people - she might not have meant that or even thought of it, but it's kind of there, unconsciously and that would be/is anti-semitic, wouldn't it?.

There's a whole lot of americans who view Israel as a strong ally and as a democracy surrounded by non-democratic nations and support Israel for those and other reasons. They don't hold those views for money. Saying they do, if they're politicians is wide of the mark.

 

That's AIPAC itself and that's correct. However, they with their associated PACs do contribute heavily to many politicians election campaigns. The lobbying arm of AIPAC is only the trunk of a very very large tree of support for politicians who are prepared to have the right views for the campaign funds

[HanoiVillan]

44 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Of course the obvious converse to that point is to ask why Jewish lobbyists and their ‘Jewish money’ have been singled out as a particular problem. 

. . . and the answer to that is, because someone (in this case, a politician) disagrees with the aspect of American foreign policy that is reflexively pro-Israel in all matters. Which is a legitimate position to hold. It seems to me to be unfair to both have an enormously-powerful lobbying machine, and then to argue that claiming that this lobbying machine is powerful constitutes a racist act. 

It is of course possible that genuine racists also make this point, and uses of phrases like 'Jewish lobbyists' and 'Jewish money' would seem to me quite whiffy. Have they been used in this case? (That's a genuine question, I haven't seen them but it's possible I've missed something and you've put 'Jewish money' in quotation marks). 

Edited February 13, 2019 by HanoiVillan

[blandy]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

...they with their associated PACs do contribute heavily to many politicians election campaigns. The lobbying arm of AIPAC is only the trunk of a very very large tree of support for politicians who are prepared to have the right views for the campaign funds

Oh, sure. I think most people agree The US system is horribly open to buying influence for sure, and for the prospect of losing re-election finance keeping politicians "aware" of their donor's interests. That AOC congress session that was posted up last week demonstrates the problem brilliantly - and obviously the even bigger one with the Presidency... No arguments there.

Campaign support, Lobbying, visits to Israel..etc. all clearly play a significant part. The same goes with the NRA, the Oil Industry etc. etc. (as HV mentioned, sort of). But it's a leap to say (as Ilhan Omar did in the original tweet) that it's "all about the Benjamins" [with Israel]. More than Oil or guns, and other issues there's (for right or wrong) a close bond between USA and Israel that goes beyond people being bought off - cultural ties, religious ties, immigration both ways, war support, democratic rule, dislike of the conduct of some Arab states - all kinds binds them together.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

It seems to me to be unfair to both have an enormously-powerful lobbying machine, and then to argue that claiming that this lobbying machine is powerful constitutes a racist act

No one's said claiming that constitutes a racist act. 

[HanoiVillan]

11 hours ago, blandy said:

I agree with @LondonLax.

It's undoubtedly the case that Lobby groups seek to sway and influence...etc. It's possible that for some politicians, that Lobbying has an impact. Lobbying is absolutely not the same as "paying them". The system of Lobbying needs severely tightening up almost everywhere. Equally, for example, for some it is certain it has no impact at all. Yer man saint Jezza of the allotment shed - I doubt that he would be affected in his views, by Lobbying from APAIC, or that his views on Palestine are because of Lobbying from Palestinian or muslim support organisations.

So the difficulty here is attributing political views of politicans solely to "the money" (The Benjamins, as in Dollars). To say outright that they are basically holding their views only because they are corrupt and on the payroll of an Israel lobby. There's also the underlying hint that Jews use their money to buy people - she might not have meant that or even thought of it, but it's kind of there, unconsciously and that would be/is anti-semitic, wouldn't it?.

There's a whole lot of americans who view Israel as a strong ally and as a democracy surrounded by non-democratic nations and support Israel for those and other reasons. They don't hold those views for money. Saying they do, if they're politicians is wide of the mark.

To be clear, 'it's all about the benjamins [music emoji]' is obviously completely inadequate as a form of political commentary, and if she takes one thing from this it should be that what seems clever as a pop-culture reference isn't enough as a public representative. She needs to make arguments, not references. Obviously, as you rather acknowledge in your comment, it's highly unlikely that her *actual*, considered opinion on the topic is 'there's literally no other explanation, not even a tiny one, for any American to have any kind feelings towards Israel at all apart from financial self-interest' because that would be moronic, but sometimes you have to read the disclaimers out loud so people can't jump on you later and she obviously didn't do that, so I guess it's probably been a steep learning curve. 

I think your opinion on the effectiveness of lobbying is much too sanguine. Lobbying is effective, and that's why companies, unions and other organisations spend lots and lots and lots of money on it. The politicians it is most effective on are those without strong opinions on a topic, so yes, no amount of lobbying would make Omar change her views on Israel, but lots of politicians enter office without strong foreign policy opinions, and those are the people who are most susceptible to being given some nice treatment and told what to do in order not to rock the boat. 

It's surprising how powerful even very small in-kind benefits can be in their effects. One big recent study into pharmaceutical company reps buying lunches for doctors - a practice which is commonplace in America - found that areas where doctors had more contact time with reps showed a strong correlation with higher opioid deaths a year later. These are doctors, who consider themselves 'evidence based', dealing with life and death issues for their patients, and it turns out they're more likely to prescribe frequently-lethal drugs if they get a sandwich and a chat. It's more than 'possible' that holidays to a foreign country and a week or two of being pampered and flattered would have an effect on many politicians' view of a country. 

Edited February 13, 2019 by HanoiVillan

[HanoiVillan]

As a reference, but also as a fascinating but depressing story in itself, this is the paper on opioid marketing, and the key parts of the conclusion:

'In this national study of the association between pharmaceutical company marketing of opioids to physicians and deaths from prescription opioid overdoses, we found that counties receiving such marketing subsequently experienced elevated mortality. In addition, opioid prescribing rates were strongly associated with the burden of opioid marketing across counties and partly mediated the association between marketing and deaths from opioid overdoses. These findings held for multiple different measures of opioid marketing across counties, including the total dollar amount of marketing received, the number of payments made per capita, and the number of physicians receiving any marketing per capita.

Our study adds to recent literature suggesting that pharmaceutical company marketing of specific products may be associated with increased prescribing of those medications. Recent data suggest that when physicians receive opioid marketing, they subsequently prescribe more opioids. We build on prior studies, however, by identifying an association of opioid marketing with deaths from opioid overdoses. Although there remains the possibility of reverse causality—that is, that counties with high opioid prescribing rates and already experiencing elevated mortality from overdoses are subsequently targeted by pharmaceutical company marketing—it is potentially concerning that physicians in such counties would receive further marketing for opioids.

The pharmaceutical industry invests tens of millions of dollars annually in direct-to-physician marketing of opioids, and it is improbable that companies would provide payments to physicians if such marketing did not either increase prescribing rates or maintain high levels of opioid prescribing. 

[. . .]

we found that the number of promotional payments made and the number of physicians receiving payments may have more of an association with county-level opioid prescribing rates and, in turn, with mortality from opioid overdoses than the dollar value of marketing. Because most marketing interactions with physicians involve meals that typically have a low monetary value, a high dollar cap would affect only a minority of prescribers who exceed this amount. As evidence mounts that industry-sponsored meals contribute to increased prescribing, data suggest that the greatest influence of pharmaceutical companies may be subtle and widespread, manifested through payments of low monetary value occurring on a very large scale.'

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2720914?guestAccessKey=630f38c9-ac45-406f-8764-b04eef425ce7

Edited February 13, 2019 by HanoiVillan

[peterms]

Article about AIPAC lobbying.

Quote

...The debate over the influence of pro-Israel groups could be informed by an investigation by Al Jazeera, in which an undercover reporter infiltrated the Israel Project, a Washington-based group, and secretly recorded conversations about political strategy and influence over a six-month period in 2016. That investigation, however, was never aired by the network — suppressed by pressure from the pro-Israel lobby.

In November, Electronic Intifada obtained and published the four-part series, but it did so during the week of the midterm elections, and the documentary did not get a lot of attention then.

In it, leaders of the pro-Israel lobby speak openly about how they use money to influence the political process, in ways so blunt that if the comments were made by critics, they’d be charged with anti-Semitism.

    “Congressmen and senators don’t do anything unless you pressure them.”

David Ochs, founder of HaLev, which helps send young people to American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual conference, described for the reporter how AIPAC and its donors organize fundraisers outside the official umbrella of the organization, so that the money doesn’t show up on disclosures as coming specifically from AIPAC. He describes one group that organizes fundraisers in both Washington and New York. “This is the biggest ad hoc political group, definitely the wealthiest, in D.C.,” Ochs says, adding that it has no official name, but is clearly tied to AIPAC. “It’s the AIPAC group. It makes a difference; it really, really does. It’s the best bang for your buck, and the networking is phenomenal.” (Ochs and AIPAC did not immediately return The Intercept’s requests for comment.)

Without spending money, Ochs argues, the pro-Israel lobby isn’t able to enact its agenda. “Congressmen and senators don’t do anything unless you pressure them. They kick the can down the road, unless you pressure them, and the only way to do that is with money,” he explains...

 

[peterms]

12 hours ago, blandy said:

So the difficulty here is attributing political views of politicans solely to "the money" (The Benjamins, as in Dollars). To say outright that they are basically holding their views only because they are corrupt and on the payroll of an Israel lobby.

There's a good thread starting here which explores this point.

 

[HanoiVillan]

Also interesting on the topic, from a former staffer (making a deathbed confession, it seems):

What Ilhan Omar Said About AIPAC Was Right

'Over the weekend, Republican House minority leader Kevin McCarthy said he would seek to formally sanction the first two Muslim congresswomen, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, because their criticism of Israel’s occupation of Palestine was even more reprehensible than Congressman Steve King’s defense of white supremacy. What motivated McCarthy’s false accusations of anti-Semitism? On Twitter, Omar suggested, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” quoting Puff Daddy’s ’90s paean to cash money. Omar subsequently specified that she was talking about spending from the likes of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known as AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying organization.

By Monday morning, AIPAC had mobilized its allies to condemn Omar’s comment for playing into centuries-old anti-Semitic tropes that wealthy Jews control the world. Even the Democratic leadership put out a statement condemning her. All because she dared to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

As a Jew, an Israeli citizen, and a professional lobbyist (ahem, activist), I speak from personal experience when I say that AIPAC is tremendously effective, and the lubricant that makes its operation hum is dollar, dollar bills.

In 2006, fresh out of college, I landed a job as the first real staffer on a long-shot Democratic congressional race in deep-red Ohio. My boss, Victoria Wulsin, was a charming hippie doctor with a lefty perspective on international affairs. She was skeptical of military force and opposed to the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

About a month after winning the Democratic primary, we were struggling to gain attention or money. Nobody gave us a chance to win. One political-action organization, however, did reach out to us. It wasn’t Emily’s List, although Vic was fiercely pro-choice. It wasn’t a labor union or even a doctors’ association. It was AIPAC.

A local Democratic volunteer leader of the Cincinnati AIPAC chapter sat down in Vic’s living room and I recall him saying that he would like to raise $5,000 for our campaign and would also like to see Vic take a public stance on two relatively obscure issues relating to Iranian sanctions, arms sales to Israel, or some other such topic that very few voters in the district cared about.

Vic and I both thought of ourselves as pro-peace, not pro-Israel. We both felt icky about doing it; it was too hawkish and too quid pro quo. But we were desperate. So I read the AIPAC position papers that the volunteer left with us, I wrote up a statement saying that Vic supported AIPAC’s stance on its two pet issues of the cycle, she approved it, I posted it online, and the checks promptly arrived in the mail thereafter. We didn’t win, but the money helped us get close.

It was, I am ashamed to say, definitely about the Benjamins. We never would have done it otherwise. AIPAC’s power is about more than money, certainly. It’s about great organizing (they built a local chapter, and sent a local Democratic volunteer emissary who then facilitated the contributions). It’s about diligence (they paid attention to Vic’s campaign long before anyone else, and were happy to donate to both us and the militaristic, pro-Likud Republican incumbent). Their lobbyists on the Hill are the best in the business, and their legislator junkets to the Holy Land are masterfully orchestrated. But money is central to the whole system.

Technically, AIPAC doesn’t make the political contributions. Instead, as it notes proudly on its website, individual members of its “Congressional Club,” like that Cincinnati resident, do the bundling and donating directly, both as individuals and through Political Action Committees that AIPAC and its members have set up.

Omar is right to point all this out. These dynamics are not unique to the Israel-Palestine issue, however, and there is no reason that Americans should be surprised or offended by what she and I are saying. The NRA and the broader gun lobby operate in the same way. Same with ExxonMobil and the fossil-fuel lobby. But since Omar and Tlaib are powerful new spokeswomen for the movement to end the Israeli occupation, delegitimizing them is a central aim of the Israel lobby.'

more on link: https://www.thenation.com/article/ady-barkan-aipac-ilhan-omar/

[Keyblade]

12 hours ago, blandy said:

Oh, sure. I think most people agree The US system is horribly open to buying influence for sure, and for the prospect of losing re-election finance keeping politicians "aware" of their donor's interests. That AOC congress session that was posted up last week demonstrates the problem brilliantly - and obviously the even bigger one with the Presidency... No arguments there.

Campaign support, Lobbying, visits to Israel..etc. all clearly play a significant part. The same goes with the NRA, the Oil Industry etc. etc. (as HV mentioned, sort of). But it's a leap to say (as Ilhan Omar did in the original tweet) that it's "all about the Benjamins" [with Israel]. More than Oil or guns, and other issues there's (for right or wrong) a close bond between USA and Israel that goes beyond people being bought off - cultural ties, religious ties, immigration both ways, war support, democratic rule, dislike of the conduct of some Arab states - all kinds binds them together.

But the question she was originally responding to was why does the average elected (GOP) official shows unwavering support for Israel? The simplest and most obvious answer is AIPAC. It's a no-brainer.  It's not the most in depth answer sure, but the most obvious explanation for why non-Evangelical Republican X from Nebraska loves Israel so much is because they received substantial campaign donations to hold that position. The answer is the same for why Cory Booker for example props up the pharmaceutical industry. Anybody else makes that innocuous point and nobody bats an eyelid.

[blandy]

11 hours ago, peterms said:

There's a good thread starting here which explores this point.

 

There's a mixture of some stuff with which I wholly agree, and he's said it much better than I did - for example

Quote

 

"Israel's place in the West's imagination, as an outpost of civilisation surrounded by barbarians, has not been imposed by a lobby.

this thread is not aimed narrowly at Ilhan Omar, who has dealt with the last few days with much grace and sound judgement. Its aimed at a wider, pre-existing problem with some left discourse on this topic, whose laziness has resurfaced this week.

 

That's exactly how I see it. And what I would have said if I were smarter. Some of the rest of it, not so much, but it's a clear setting out of his viewpoint.