The most expensive Democratic House primary in history is coming to a close as New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman fights to retain his seat despite significant spending from the pro-Israel lobby. Polls in the Bronx and Westchester closed at 9 p.m., and results are expected Tuesday night. While some polls suggested that Bowman was heading for a loss, his internal polling showed him leading by 1 percentage point.
The race to unseat Bowman has seen outside groups spend a staggering $23 million, with over 60 percent of that money coming from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC poured more than $14 million into the race over the course of five weeks, funding ads that inundated TV spots in New York and bombarding voters with mailers, text messages, and phone calls attacking Bowman and supporting his opponent, Westchester County Executive George Latimer. This unprecedented expenditure has turned the race into a referendum on the power of the pro-Israel lobby to oust progressives critical of Israel’s human rights abuses from Congress.
AIPAC’s involvement in the race goes beyond just funding attack ads. The lobbying group encouraged Latimer to run against Bowman and helped funnel Republican money into his campaign as part of its plan to spend $100 million to oust members of the Squad who led calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. After failing to recruit preferred candidates to challenge other Squad members, AIPAC shifted its focus to propelling challengers against Bowman and Rep. Cori Bush. AIPAC has spent just over $2 million so far on the race against Bush and is backing her opponent, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell.
Bowman’s race is a significant test for AIPAC’s new strategy, as the group has shifted its priorities from lobbying Congress to spending directly on campaigns by launching a political action committee and a super PAC in 2021. Other groups in AIPAC’s orbit, such as Democratic Majority for Israel, have also joined the electoral push, spending just over $1 million on the race against Bowman.
The influx of AIPAC’s election spending has changed the electoral calculus of the Democratic Party. Historically, Democrats took drastic measures to protect incumbents from primary challenges, but party leaders have done little to support progressive incumbents facing attacks from AIPAC and its allies. In the past, party leaders went all in to protect their own against progressive insurgents. During the 2018 cycle, Democrats blacklisted campaign vendors who worked with progressive primary challengers. House Democratic leaders launched a new political action committee to back their members and a new dark-money group emerged to help the cause.
However, as leading pro-Israel lobbying groups poured millions into the race to oust Bowman, Democratic leaders have been less unified in their outspoken support for incumbents than in previous cycles. While Rep. Hakeem Jeffries endorsed Bowman in March and recorded a robocall for his campaign, he has not appeared on the campaign circuit with Bowman. This lack of unified support can be attributed to the fact that AIPAC, the group funding the primary challenge against Bowman, is also funding and endorsing Democratic leaders who have endorsed Bowman. Jeffries, along with House Minority Whip Katherine Clark and House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, have taken more than $3 million from AIPAC’s PAC since 2021. This creates a complex dynamic where Democratic leaders are accepting millions of dollars from the group funding Bowman’s ouster while endorsing him.
AIPAC has also given millions to other Democratic leaders known for protecting incumbents. Rep. Josh Gottheimer, who launched a political action committee alongside Jeffries to protect members, has received more than $1.6 million from AIPAC’s PAC since 2021. On Monday, Gottheimer endorsed Latimer, further highlighting the divided support within the Democratic Party.
In conclusion, the primary race between Jamaal Bowman and George Latimer has become a battleground for the power of the pro-Israel lobby and its influence on progressive candidates critical of Israel’s human rights abuses. AIPAC’s unprecedented spending has shifted the electoral calculus of the Democratic Party, with party leaders offering less unified support for progressive incumbents facing attacks from AIPAC and its allies. The complex dynamic of Democratic leaders accepting money from AIPAC while endorsing candidates funded by the same group raises questions about their commitment to progressive values. The outcome of this race will have significant implications for the future of progressive politics within the Democratic Party.
