Lobbying

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares169 Views

    Amazon, Tesla and Meta among world’s top companies undermining democracy – report

    by

    Some of the world’s largest companies have been accused of undermining democracy across the world by financially backing far-right political movements, funding and exacerbating the climate crisis, and violating trade union rights and human rights in a report published on Monday by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).Amazon, Tesla, Meta, ExxonMobil, Blackstone, Vanguard and Glencore are the corporations included in the report. The companies’ lobbying arms are attempting to shape global policy at the United Nations Summit of the Future in New York City on 22 and 23 September.At Amazon, the report notes the company’s size and role as the fifth largest employer in the world and the largest online retailer and cloud computing service, has had a profound impact on the industries and communities it operates within.“The company has become notorious for its union busting and low wages on multiple continents, monopoly in e-commerce, egregious carbon emissions through its AWS data centres, corporate tax evasion, and lobbying at national and international level,” states the report.The report cites Amazon’s high injury rates in the US, the company challenging the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), its efforts in Canada to overturn labor law, the banning of Amazon lobbyists from the European parliament for refusing to attend hearings on worker violations, and refusal to negotiate with unions in Germany, among other cases. Amazon has also funded far-right political groups’ efforts to undermine women’s rights and antitrust legislation, and its retail website has been used by hate groups to raise money and sell products.At Tesla, the report cites anti-union opposition by the company in the US, Germany, and Sweden; human rights violations within its supply chains; and Elon Musk’s personal opposition to unions and democracy, challenges to the NLRB in the US, and his support for the political leaders Donald Trump, Javier Milei in Argentina and Narendra Modi in India.The report cites Meta, the largest social media company in the world, for its vast role in permitting and enabling far-right propaganda and movements to use its platforms to grow members and garner support in the US and abroad. It also cited retaliation from the company for regulatory measures in Canada, and expensive lobbying efforts against laws to regulate data privacy.Glencore, the largest mining company in the world by revenue, was included in the report for its role in financing campaigns globally against Indigenous communities and activists.Blackstone, the private equity firm led by Stephen Schwarzman, a billionaire backer of Donald Trump, was cited in the report for its roles in funding far-right political movements, investments in fossil fuel projects and deforestation in the Amazon.“Blackstone’s network has spent tens of millions of dollars supporting politicians and political forces who promise to prevent or eliminate regulations that might hold it to account,” the report noted.The Vanguard Group was included in the report due to its role in financing some of the world’s most anti-democratic corporations. ExxonMobil was cited for funding anti-climate science research and aggressive lobbying against environmental regulations.Even in “robust democracies” workers’ demands “are overwhelmed by corporate lobbying operations, either in policymaking or the election in itself”, said Todd Brogan, director of campaigns and organizing at the ITUC.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“This is about power, who has it, and who sets the agenda. We know as trade unionists that unless we’re organized, the boss sets the agenda in the workplace, and we know as citizens in our countries that unless we’re organized and demanding responsive governments that actually meet the needs of people, it’s corporate power that’s going to set the agenda.“They’re playing the long game, and it’s a game about shifting power away from democracy at every level into one where they’re not concerned about the effects on workers – they’re concerned about maximizing their influence and their extractive power and their profit,” added Brogan. “Now is the time for international and multi-sectoral strategies, because these are, in many cases, multinational corporations that are more powerful than states, and they have no democratic accountability whatsoever, except for workers organized.”The ITUC includes labor group affiliates from 169 nations and territories around the world representing 191 million workers, including the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of labor unions in the US, and the Trades Union Congress in the UK.With 4 billion people around the world set to participate in elections in 2024, the federation is pushing for an international binding treaty being worked on by the Open-ended intergovernmental working group to hold transnational corporations accountable under international human rights laws. More

    More stories

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Perilous for democracy, good for profits’: is big business ready to love Trump again?

      by

      Chief executives of some of America’s largest companies will meet privately with Donald Trump later on Thursday, and many CEOs who were once critical of his unprecedented conduct appear increasingly open to the former president’s return to office, a Guardian analysis has found.The private audience with the former president will take place at the quarterly gathering of the Business Roundtable, a powerful Washington lobbying group that advocates for the interests of chief executives of big US firms. Joe Biden was also invited; his chief of staff will attend while the US president is abroad, a Business Roundtable spokesperson said.The meeting comes less than five months before the election and less than four years after CEOs raised the alarm about political polarization and threats to democracy when Trump refused to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election and incited an insurrection at the US Capitol.Back then, the Business Roundtable – whose members include Apple’s Tim Cook, General Motors’ Mary Barra and JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon – led a chorus of condemnation from corporate America. “The country deserves better,” the Business Roundtable said in a statement on 6 January 2021, calling on Trump and his administration “to put an end to the chaos and to facilitate the peaceful transition of power”.Today, with Biden and Trump tied in the polls, Trump can expect a far warmer reception from corporate bosses. “The reality is … we as CEOs and we as a Business Roundtable, we’re going to work with whoever is in the White House,” Chuck Robbins, the lobby group’s chair and the CEO of Cisco Systems, told Fortune in March.“The way we think about it is, if we have a Trump administration or if we have a Biden administration, regardless, there are going to be things we can align on in both,” Robbins said.While corporate America’s views appear to have changed, Trump’s have not. The former president still has not accepted the results of the 2020 election, nor has he committed to accepting the 2024 outcome. He maintains that the supporters who he urged to storm the Capitol “were there with love in their heart”.And Trump and his campaign have promised a range of divisive and anti-democratic initiatives if he is re-elected, from mass firings of non-partisan government officials to the weaponization of the US Department of Justice against his perceived enemies.Yet a second Trump term promises benefits for CEOs and their companies in a variety of policy areas, from lucrative tax breaks – Trump’s recent pledges include a “business class big tax cut” – to sweeping rollbacks of Biden-era efforts to promote market competition and strengthen worker power.“It has always been clear that the CEOs of the Fortune 500 are not what is going to preserve democracy, and that the CEOs of the Fortune 500 work for their investors who demand insatiable amounts of profit,” said Lindsay Owens of the Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive advocacy group.“If they think that President Trump is perilous for democracy but good for profits, I think it has always been clear where they are going to land on this question.”‘A sad time for our country’A few days after the 2020 election, dozens of CEOs gathered on a hastily organized 7am Zoom call to discuss Trump’s refusal to accept that he had lost.The executives met “to share observations and talk about what possible roles they might play in encouraging a smooth transfer of power”, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale School of Management professor who has spent decades counseling chief executives, and who convened the post-election Zoom, later wrote.Attending the call were the heads of some of America’s largest corporations, including Walmart, Johnson & Johnson, Blackstone, Comcast and Goldman Sachs.The next day, the Business Roundtable, which counted many of the attending CEOs as members, issued a high-profile statement congratulating Biden and Kamala Harris and urging “elected officials and Americans across the political spectrum to work in good faith to find common ground”.View image in fullscreenA similar pattern played out in the days surrounding the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol: CEOs and their companies quickly distanced themselves from Trump. Many pledged to stop making campaign contributions to Republican politicians who voted against certifying the election results. Executives were portrayed in the media as patriots who put their self-interest aside and their reputations at risk to speak out.“It’s just a sad time for our country,” Robbins, the Cisco boss, told the New York Times. “At a time where we have so many challenges, the partisanship is astounding.”“Our leaders must call for peace and unity now,” tweeted Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce, on 6 January. “There is no room for violence in our democracy. May the one who brings peace bring peace to our country.”While the full list of attendees of the 2020 Zoom call has not been published, the Guardian contacted a dozen companies and trade groups whose current or previous CEOs or members were reported to have joined the call or expressed concerns about Trump’s commitment to the democratic process, such as Cisco and Salesforce.The Guardian sought comment from the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers, another corporate lobbying group, which on January 6 called for Trump’s cabinet to consider removing him from office using the 25th amendment.One company declined to comment. Of the other firms and trade groups, none responded to inquiries about whether they remained concerned about Trump’s commitment to democracy, or whether they would speak out if Trump were to express an unwillingness to accept the results of the 2024 election if he loses.‘They’ve done the math’Corporate America’s relationship to Trump is complicated. “The narrative that the business community is hedging their bets and that CEOs are ‘softening towards Donald Trump’ is escalating and fast becoming a fact-free echo chamber of unsupported pronouncements,” Yale’s Sonnenfeld argued earlier this year.Few chief executives of large US companies are personally donating to Trump’s campaign, Sonnenfeld noted. “The money trail, or lack thereof, speaks to the frayed ties between Trump and the business world.”In an interview with the Guardian, Sonnenfeld pointed to a number of policy issues on which CEOs disagreed with the former president. Chief executives “are pro-immigration reform. They are not xenophobes. And … they are not protectionist. They believe in a globalized economy,” Sonnenfeld said.“They also believe in social harmony, either out of personal character, patriotic values or enlightened self-interest. They don’t want furious communities tearing apart the social fabric. They don’t want shareholders screaming at them. They don’t want employees sabotaging each other. They depend on social harmony to navigate their businesses.”“Today, there’s no support of any public CEO for Trump, even though … the polls are far more favorable to him than they were in the earlier two elections,” Sonnenfeld said.But experts and advocates noted that on a range of issues – among them, tax cuts, efforts to undermine collective bargaining and worker power, and regulatory rollbacks, especially environmental protections – CEOs have plenty of reasons to expect that a second Trump term could prove lucrative.“We actually don’t need to overanalyze it,” said Michael Linden, a former Biden administration official who is now a fellow at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. “At the end of the day, corporations and CEOs have always liked low taxes. They’ve always liked deregulation.“For all of Donald Trump’s heterodoxy on some issues, [on] those things” – taxes and regulations – “he is standard. He is indistinguishable from Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney or George W Bush or pick your standard Republican.”“I think they’ve done the math,” said Timi Iwayemi of the Revolving Door Project, which tracks corporate political influence. “They can say, ‘We’ve already seen Trump. We had Trump 1.0. Yeah, sure, it was bad, but it wasn’t the end of America. America is still here.’”‘The stakes are huge, and they are real’One of Trump’s few legislative achievements as president was a huge tax cut that permanently slashed the corporate tax rate by 40%.A recent report by the non-partisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (Itep) found that the law saved some of America’s biggest and most profitable companies $240bn in taxes between 2018 – the first full year it was in effect – and 2021.Walmart, for instance, paid an average effective tax rate of 31% between 2013 and 2016. After Trump signed his tax cuts into law, the company’s average rate fell to 17%, Itep found. The change saved the consumer goods giant $9bn between 2018 and 2021.Salesforce, meanwhile, paid only $175m in federal taxes over the first five years of the Trump tax cuts, according to previous Itep research. Salesforce brought home about $6bn in profit during the same period.“Obviously, the US government is a large customer of Salesforce, and depending on who’s in office, it creates a whole stir with a different part of our employee base,” Salesforce’s Benioff told Bloomberg in January. “So that’s just a reality. But the reality is that, hey, we are the same company regardless of when that election is going to occur and regardless of who that president will be.”Trump has promised to reduce the corporate tax rate even further if he wins a second term. But corporations are gearing up for an even bigger tax fight next year.Cuts to individual income and estate taxes, as well as business “pass-through” rates – changes that overwhelmingly benefited wealthy and white Americans – are set to expire next December.“Whether they just expire, whether they get replaced by something, whether they get extended, is a massive question, and it will be a question that Congress has to deal with and the president has to deal with one way or the other,” said Equitable Growth’s Linden. “And so the stakes are huge, and they are real.”For corporations, these stakes are even higher following their failure earlier this year to secure passage of a congressional tax deal that would have rolled back some of the taxes meant to pay for Trump’s 2017 tax law.Companies and their trade groups lobbied aggressively for these provisions, which could have saved them hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, the Guardian previously reported.“I think they assume under Trump they will not only get an extension of the status quo, which is very beneficial to them, but they will also have another bite at the apple to get even more than they currently have,” said Owens of the Groundwork Collaborative.‘A huge turn-off to business leaders’In other policy areas, a second Trump administration would have more leeway to unilaterally pursue an agenda friendly to big business – and would enter office with a savvier understanding of how to achieve it.“In 2024 Trump will be a much more professional operation,” said the Revolving Door Project’s Iwayemi. “They have a much more clear and deep understanding of the executive branch. And they would have a team that would be fully equipped.”Last year, the rightwing Heritage Foundation published “Project 2025”, a policy-by-policy, agency-by-agency roadmap to “dismantle the administrative state”, as the organization’s president described it.Project 2025 includes a range of policy levers that would roll back efforts to promote economic competition and protect workers. Many of the recommendations align with positions that corporate interests have already taken.View image in fullscreenFor instance, Biden’s Securities and Exchange Commission recently approved new requirements for public companies to disclose some of the risks that climate change presents to their businesses.The final SEC rule was weaker than the agency’s original proposal, and even incorporated recommendations from the Business Roundtable and other trade groups not to require companies to track or report on the climate impacts of their supply chains.Nevertheless, immediately after the rule was finalized, Republican state attorneys general and the US Chamber of Commerce, another corporate lobbying group, sued the agency.“Everybody here [at the Business Roundtable] is committed to climate change, to controlling our carbon footprint,” Robbins told CNBC the day after the SEC finalized the climate disclosure rule. “But some of the requirements – first of all, we’re not sure it’s the SEC’s remit to do that. But secondly … it’s just an incredible amount of work that actually increases costs at a time when we’re talking about inflation …”Project 2025 goes even further, suggesting that Congress prohibit the SEC from requiring these types of disclosures in the first place.It also encourages repeal of other reporting rules that became law after the 2008 financial crisis, such as a requirement that public companies disclose the ratio of CEO compensation to median worker pay. The Business Roundtable spent years opposing federal efforts to require companies to disclose this measure of executive compensation.Another agency that has drawn borderline-obsessive corporate ire is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which under Biden has taken a far more aggressive approach to challenging corporate power than any administration – Republican or Democratic – for decades.Earlier this year the FTC finalized a landmark ban on non-compete clauses. The ban, as the FTC chair, Lina Khan, described it, helps make sure workers “have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business or bring a new idea to market”.“Something that I think Americans have been hungry for, for a long time” is for government “in a muscular way [to] protect them not just as consumers but also as workers and small businesses from serious abuse from big corporations”, said Elizabeth Wilkins, a former White House official who recently stepped down as the FTC’s chief of staff.“This is stuff that people want, but … it’s also stuff that big corporations have been getting away with for a long time,” said Wilkins, now a fellow at the anti-monopoly American Economic Liberties Project. “I am sure that they aren’t happy about it.”The day after the FTC finalized the ban on non-competes, the Business Roundtable filed a lawsuit to stop what it called “this unwarranted regulatory overreach”.“The Federal Trade Commission is a huge turn-off to business leaders,” said Yale’s Sonnenfeld.“Corporations recognize that there’s an alphabet soup of government agencies with the power to properly enforce longstanding laws and, when necessary, crack down [on] corporate exploitation,” said Iwayemi.They “recognize that if you pull any acronym out of the pot – take the SEC or the FTC or whichever – they have the potential to sell out public interest. And that is just much more likely under the Trump administration.”‘They are not the central heroes of the economic story’Despite their complaints about the Biden agenda, the fact remains that US corporations have thrived during Biden’s time in office, routinely reporting record profits and awarding sky-high CEO pay.In 2023, the median head of an S&P 500 company took home more than $16m, an increase of nearly 13% from the previous year, according to a recent AP and Equilar analysis. Workers’ wages grew only 4%, the report found.Meanwhile, corporations are salivating over hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax incentives created by Biden-era legislation to tackle climate change and spur domestic investment in infrastructure and semiconductor manufacturing.And far from freezing out corporate America – as some progressives had hoped – the Biden White House has aggressively solicited executives’ input. Wilkins described the administration conducting “an enormous amount of outreach to the corporate community”.“They engage, for sure,” Robbins told CNBC in March. “There’s open communication – there always is. So that’s not the issue.”Still, bosses appear increasingly fed up with Biden’s rhetoric.While the Biden administration has “been great for business” and most CEOs are not actively supporting Trump’s re-election bid, that “doesn’t mean that they’re pro-Biden,” Sonnenfeld said.“There are plenty of issues that they have [with Biden] on certain areas. They don’t like being vilified on the tax front, even though maybe some should pay some higher taxes. They smart on setting up a class warfare.”The president “puts workers at the center of the economic universe: unions and labor power and competition and higher taxes on the rich”, said Linden. Corporations “really get offended when people suggest that they are not the central heroes of the economic story. They really don’t like that.”Trump might praise wealthy CEOs, or at least refrain from saying they should pay higher taxes or suffer new consumer protections.View image in fullscreenYet one of the former president’s defining characteristics remains his fanatical pursuit of grudges against perceived enemies and those who he believes have slighted him.This track record suggests that CEOs’ silence today – perhaps a result of Trump’s coin-flip odds of ending up back in the White House – may not guarantee their protection from his vindictiveness tomorrow.That, however, is a gamble that many executives appear willing to make.For CEOs: “There may be limited downside to making nice noises about Trump,” suggested Rosanna Weaver, a consultant for the shareholder advocacy group As You Sow. “If Trump is elected you have some credit with him. If Biden is elected, he is unlikely to hold the same kind of vindictive grudge that Trump would.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      New York lobbyists ‘aiding and abetting’ climate crisis, research reveals

      by

      New research reveals that dozens of New York universities, hospitals, museums and non-profits are employing lobbyists that also work for fossil fuel companies, which some say is blatantly “aiding and abetting” climate crisis.New York’s wealthiest lobbying firms work double-duty in the state capital, representing the political interests of both the victims and perpetrators of the climate crisis, according to a new report from F Minus, a database of state-level lobbying disclosures released last year, and LittleSis, a project created by the non-profit corporate and government accountability watchdog Public Accountability Initiative.The report analyzed the client rosters of six of the top lobbying firms in New York, revealing how the state’s cultural, business and educational leaders – many of whom tout their commitment to slowing climate crisis – are quietly linked to the fossil fuel industry.New York University, which proudly pledged to divest its $5bn endowment from coal, oil and gas companies last year, shares its lobbyists with six fossil fuel companies, including Valero and National Grid.Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, a non-profit that offers education on the deadly health effects of cigarette smoke inhalation, works with the same New York-based lobbying firm as Koch Industries, known for its prolific history of climate denial and pollution of American air and water.The New Museum, which currently exhibits a series of paintings featuring endangered plants and animals, employs the same lobbying firm as BP America and the Williams Companies, the largest operator of gas pipelines in the country.“You have schools like NYU scrutinizing the energy efficiency of every single lightbulb on campus, but then they turn around and hire the same firms that represent the people who are causing the climate crisis,” said James Browning, executive director of F Minus.Browning said the clients of fossil fuel lobbyists are “aiding and abetting” climate change, lending their cultural cache and credibility to these lobbying firms.“If lobbyists only worked with fossil fuel clients, it would be much easier for lawmakers in Albany to dismiss them, close the door and not return any of their calls,” Browning said. “But because they have all these prestigious clients, clients that are a huge part of New York’s economy, it lends these lobbyists a kind of shield from scrutiny.”Last year, Brown & Weinraub, one of the top-paid lobbying firms in New York, helped the American Petroleum Institute oppose the creation of a superfund that would generate $3bn annually for disaster recovery and climate resiliency projects. Brown & Weinraub also works with Google, which last year ramped up its public commitment to environmental causes.A spokesperson for Google told the Guardian that the company has a proven track record of sustainability, investing in renewable energy and working to cut emissions.But Browning warns that Brown & Weinraub can use Google’s name to advance lobbying efforts for other, less politically attractive clients, like fossil fuel companies.“We know that in the capitol building, it’s pretty hard to say no to a meeting with the people who represent Google,” Browning said. “That’s why it’s worth investigating who else your lobbyist does business with.”The problem extends far beyond New York: in 2022 alone, Google shared lobbying firms with fossil fuel clients in 17 states.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionNationwide, a whopping 1,500 lobbyists are working on behalf of fossil-fuel companies while simultaneously representing hundreds of Democratic cities, universities and tech giants. These outwardly left-leaning clients offer a kind of environmentally-conscious visage for lobbyists, allowing them to adopt the language of the environmental movement while still enjoying the deep pockets of the fossil fuel industry.Pittsburgh, notably, has embraced fossil fuel lobbyists more than any other major US city, according to a 2023 report from F Minus and LittleSis.Part of the issue, climate advocates say, is that companies and non-profits overestimate the ethical guardrails that exist for political lobbyists.“Laws regulating the relationship of lobbyists and their clients are scarce and not especially transparent,” said Carroll Muffett, president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law. “The rules regarding conflicts of interest for lobbyists are not nearly as stringent as they are for attorneys, for example.”Last month, in an email correspondence with the state commission on ethics and lobbying in government, F Minus confirmed that there is no provision in the New York Lobbying Act that “prohibits a lobbyist from working for and against a bill at the same time”.Without robust oversight of political lobbyists, firms are left to self-regulate conflicts of interest. It is unclear how a lobbying firm handles situations where one client supports climate-related legislation while another client opposes it.“In cases where there is a conflict of interest, but maybe not a direct one, there is this big question: where does your lobbyist’s true allegiance lie,” Muffett said. “You need to remember that question whenever you are dealing with a lobbying firm that is heavily invested in and funded by the fossil fuel industry.” More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      As the NRA fades, a more zealous US pro-gun group rises as a lobbying power

      by

      A zealous gun rights group, even more uncompromising than the once formidable National Rifle Association, is emerging as a force in US politics with a mission to oppose efforts at gun control and ease further America’s already lax regulations on firearms.Last year the Gun Owners of America (GOA) spent $3.3m on lobbying, a record sum for the hardline foe of gun control that now claims over 2 million members and activists, and has previously operated in the shadows of the larger NRA.The GOA’s record lobbying spending in 2022 was spurred in part by a rise in its annual revenues, which more than tripled from $2.3m in 2016 to $8.7m in 2021, according to tax records.The GOA is an adamant enemy of gun control measures of all stripes, and proudly calls itself the “no compromise” gun lobby. Its surge in lobbying spending reflects one way it has capitalized on the financial and legal problems of the once 5 million-member NRA in the hopes of expanding the GOA’s political clout, say gun experts.“The GOA was formed in the 1970s because they believed the NRA was too liberal,” said Robert Spitzer, the author of several books on guns and a professor emeritus at Suny Cortland in New York. “True to its creed, the GOA has opposed every manner of gun law and attacked the NRA at every turn.”The GOA’s anti-gun control posture was underscored by its opposition to a bipartisan compromise gun control bill in 2022 that closed some gun law loopholes, including for prospective buyers under 21, and implemented gun violence prevention policies, becoming the first gun control bill enacted since 1994.The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act garnered just 29 Republican votes in Congress, but the GOA this year in an alert to its members warning of pending legislative threats suggested those votes were “cowardly”.The GOA’s lobbying efforts in 2022 were notable in another way: it was the only gun rights group to increase its spending in 2022 according to OpenSecrets, and surpassed the NRA’s lobbying expenditures of $2.6m last year, a drop of over $2m from the NRA’s 2021 total.Through the first six months of 2023, the GOA spent $1.8m on lobbying, putting it on track to equal or surpass the $3.2m it spent last year.As it has ramped up its influence activity in Washington, the GOA also touts its member chapters and allies including the California Gun Rights Foundation and other ones in Florida, Pennsylvania and Texas.Nationally the GOA and its chapters have flexed their lobbying and legal muscles in some significant fights in several states. For instance, in New Mexico the GOA has claimed success in obtaining a temporary restraining order against new gun curbs in Albuquerque.On the legal front, the GOA has also filed amicus briefs – with help from the conservative lawyer William Olson, who put forward some aggressive schemes to Donald Trump in late 2020 as he sought to overturn his election defeat – in at least two major cases pending at the supreme court where the GOA is seeking to thwart existing and new gun regulations. This month the court heard arguments in US vs Rahimi that could overturn a 30-year-old ban on guns for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders.Gun experts say the GOA has long tried to outflank the NRA on the right as the most implacable opponent of gun control measures, and now sees an opening to expand its influence in federal and state battles over gun control.“With the mostly self-inflicted damage the NRA has suffered, the GOA very much wants to replace the NRA as the nation’s pre-eminent gun rights group,” said Spitzer. “To that end, it is raising and spending more money, filing more suits against gun laws, and has formed its own Super Pac and political victory fund. These and other tactics mimic the NRA’s traditional political playbook.”In Spitzer’s eyes, “the GOA’s prospects for success depend on the extent to which the NRA can recover from its reversals and retain the loyalty of gun owners”.The NRA has reportedly lost about 1 million members since 2019 after allegations of financial misconduct surfaced and the New York attorney general sued the CEO of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, and other top executives for using the NRA as a “personal piggy bank”.Some ex-members of Congress say that historically the GOA has tried to exploit a perception that the NRA is too moderate.“For years, the NRA had concerns about losing members to the GOA and other extreme groups,” the former Republican congressman Charlie Dent said. “Any time the NRA tried to compromise on something, the GOA would accuse them of selling out.”Likewise, gun control advocates and ex-NRA officials say the GOA has been moving to fill the gap created by the NRA’s woes.“The NRA’s loss has been GOA’s gain,” Kristen Rand, a veteran lawyer with the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy and research group, told the Guardian. “GOA makes the NRA look thoughtful and moderate. No matter how minor a change in rule or statute, GOA always portrays it as a sweeping gun ban.”Such hardball tactics have coincided with an uptick in the GOA’s federal campaign spending to expand its influence. The GOA donated $147,500 to Republican federal candidates last year, more than double what the group donated in 2018 to federal candidates, according to OpenSecrets.Further, the GOA last year established a Super Pac, the GOA Victory Fund, which spent $2.6m on federal races in last fall’s elections.The GOA did not respond to calls seeking comment.To keep the heat on Congress by mobilizing its members, the GOA regularly posts feverish alerts. Several alerts this year have bashed regulatory moves by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and other efforts to tighten gun curbs in response to rising deaths from gun violence, and mass shootings in Maine, New York, Texas and other states since Joe Biden became president.One GOA alert this year broadly condemned the ATF as a “rogue executive branch that flat out hates gun owners and the constitution”.Other GOA alerts warn darkly of threats of new gun control bills after last year’s bipartisan measure passed, including a possible assault weapons ban that Biden has called for, but which is deemed unlikely while Republicans control the House.One alert warned: “Now, Biden and the anti-gun lobby are dialing up the pressure on the same cowardly Republicans to find support for the next item on their endless wish list of gun control … a national ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ and normal capacity magazines.”Gun control advocates say the GOA’s scare tactics are out of sync with reality.“Gun Owners of America peddles hyperbolic falsehoods about any and all attempts by Congress to slow the devastating toll of gun violence in our nation,” said Adzi Vokhiwa, the director of federal affairs for Giffords, a gun control advocacy group.“They even oppose every effort by the ATF to simply enforce gun laws.“Gun safety laws limiting the availability of firearms to people with a history of dangerous behavior can and do co-exist with the ability of law-abiding gun owners to freely exercise their second amendment rights, despite GOA’s false claims otherwise.”Other anti-gun control groups have also ramped up their lobbying and legal drives.The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents the firearms industry, has outspent the NRA on lobbying in recent years. In 2020 and 2021, the NSSF reported spending $4.6m and $5m respectively on federal lobbying. By contrast, the NRA spent $2.2m and $4.9m.Some ex-NRA officials downplay the influence of the GOA and other pro-gun groups in the wake of the NRA’s problems.“The void created by the self-inflicted and fatal chaos that is the current NRA is being filled by numerous other pro-gun organizations,” a former NRA executive said, adding that this situation “is more of a reflection on the demise of the NRA, than the effectiveness of other organizations”.Another ex-NRA honcho quipped: “GOA’s rise corresponds to when the NRA started going down the crapper.”Assessing the GOA’s impact and expanded lobbying efforts, the Violence Policy Center’s Rand stressed: “As the NRA has lost its footing, its more extreme members have embraced GOA. The group’s expanding influence can only drive pro-gun positions on legislation even further to the right.” More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      They’re lobbying for Ukraine pro bono – and making millions from arms firms

      by

      They’re lobbying for Ukraine pro bono – and making millions from arms firmsSome of Washington’s most powerful lobbyists are providing their services to Ukraine for free, but they also have financial incentives for aiding the countryThis article was co-published with Responsible Statecraft.Some of Washington’s most powerful lobbyists are providing their services to Ukraine for free – but at the same time, they are taking in millions in fees from Pentagon contractors who stand to benefit from the country’s war with Russia.Following Russian president Vladimir Putin’s internationally condemned decision to invade Ukraine there was an outpouring of support to the besieged nation from seemingly every industry in America. But, arguably, one of the most crucial industries coming to Ukraine’s aid has been Washington’s powerful lobbying industry.The invasion has led some of the lobbying industry’s biggest players to do the unthinkable – lobby for free. While the influence industry may have altruistic reasons for representing Ukraine pro bono, some lobbying firms also have financial incentives for aiding Ukraine: they’ve made millions lobbying for arms manufacturers that could profit from the war.The surge in pro-bono Ukraine lobbyingUS law requires agents of foreign principals who are engaged in political activities to make periodic public disclosures of their relationship under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (Fara). Twenty-five registrants have agreed to represent Ukrainian interests pro bono since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Before the war, just 11 Fara registrants were working on behalf of Ukrainian interests.“I don’t recall a comparable surge in pro-bono work for any foreign principal,” said David Laufman, a partner at the law firm Wiggin and Dana, who previously oversaw Fara enforcement at the justice department.Many of these new pro-bono Ukrainian lobbyists are pushing for greater US military support for the Ukrainian military. As one registrant explained in a Fara filing, they intend “to lobby members of the US government to increase US Department of Defense spending on contracts related to equipment and other efforts which will aid the ability of the Ukrainian military to succeed in its fight against the Russian military”.While many of these pro-bono lobbyists may be doing this work purely out of solidarity with Ukraine, some of the firms working free of charge for Ukraine have an added incentive.Hogan LovellsBefore winning the speakership in the new Republican Congress, Representative Kevin McCarthy warned that Republicans wouldn’t approve a “blank check” for Ukraine aid once they took power. But, just last week the GOP’s biggest fundraiser agreed to provide pro-bono assistance in loosening Congress’s purse strings when it comes to Ukraine.On 16 February, former senator Norm Coleman, senior counsel with the law firm Hogan Lovells, filed Fara paperwork revealing that he is pro-bono lobbyist for a foundation controlled by the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk. Coleman oversaw the raising and spending of over $260m in funds supporting Republican congressional candidates in the 2022 midterm elections.Coleman, who has extensive experience as a lobbyist for foreign interests via his longstanding role as an agent for Saudi Arabia, was already busy at work for Ukraine. Emails from 4 February disclosed as part of Coleman’s Fara disclosures, revealed him requesting assistance from senators Lindsey Graham and Thom Tillis’s chiefs of staff in hosting an event at the Capitol “to give members of Congress a better understanding of the horrific loss of life and the tragic agony that the people of Ukraine have experienced over the course of the last year as a direct result of Russian war crimes” and “do as much as possible to ensure continued, strong, bipartisan support for the truly heroic efforts that this administration and Congress have made to provide the essential military and economic assistance to Ukraine”.While Hogan Lovells conducts this work pro bono, two of the firm’s paying clients, Looking Glass Cyber Solutions and HawkEye 360, have extensive defense department contracts and an interest in the conflict in Ukraine.Looking Glass, which paid Hogan Lovells $200,000 in 2022, holds a five-year contract with the Department of Defense to “to provide tailored cyber threat intelligence data and enhance the mission effectiveness of US military cyber threat analysts and operators” and writes on its website about the role of such threats in Russia’s military strategy.HawkEye 360, which also paid $200,000 to Hogan Lovells in 2022, similarly is a defense department contractor, specializing in detection and geolocation of radio signals. Their detection network conducted analysis in Ukraine and their website boasts of identifying GPS interference in Ukraine, appearing to be part of Moscow’s “integration of electronic warfare tactics into Russian military operation to further degrade Ukraine’s ability for self-defense”.Hogan Lovells did not respond to multiple requests for comment.BGRBGR Government Affairs (BGR), a lobbying and communications firm, began working pro bono for two Ukrainian interests last May. The contracts are with Vadym Ivchenko, a member of Ukraine’s parliament, and Elena Lipkivska Ergul, an adviser to Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy.In 2022 BGR made more than half a million dollars lobbying for Pentagon contractors, some of whom are already profiting from the Ukraine war. Raytheon, for example, which paid BGR $240,000 to lobby on its behalf in 2022, according to OpenSecrets, has already been awarded more than $2bn in government contracts related to the Ukraine war.Indeed, two days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a BGR adviser was publicly calling for increased military aid to Ukraine in the face of Putin’s recognition of the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics as independent states.“Militarily, the United States and Nato allies need to get far more serious about helping Ukraine defend itself,” wrote Kurt Volker, BGR senior adviser and former US Nato ambassador, in an article published by the Center for European Policy Analysis (Cepa).His article, “Buckle Up: This is Just the First Step”, was promoted on the BGR website. Cepa did not disclose Volker’s BGR affiliation in the article.“BGR has no conflict of interest and is proud of its work on behalf of Ukraine and all of its clients,” said BGR’s president, Jeffrey H Birnbaum, in a statement responding to questions about whether their work posed any such conflict.MercuryMercury Public Affairs (Mercury), a lobbying, public affairs and political strategy consultancy, began working pro bono for GloBee International Agency for Regional Development (“GloBee”), a Ukrainian NGO, in mid-March 2022. The firm made headlines for agreeing to work for a Ukrainian client pro bono. The firm’s Fara filing later in the year shows that Mercury’s work consisted of sending just four emails on Globee’s behalf in the first three and a half months of this arrangement.Mercury, like BGR, was also working on behalf of Pentagon contractors in 2022, while working for a Ukrainian client pro bono. All told, Mercury reported being paid more than $180,000 for lobbying on behalf of Pentagon contractors in 2022.Mercury’s work for a Ukrainian client is also notable because before the Ukraine war the firm had, for years, been working on behalf of Russian interests. This work included lobbying on behalf of Russia’s Sovcombank, as well as a Russian energy company founded by the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Deripaska was recently implicated in a scheme to bribe an FBI agent that was investigating him. Mercury dropped both of these Russian clients when the Ukraine war began, but not before earning nearly $3m from these Russian interests in the five years before the firm agreed to work for a Ukrainian client pro bono, according to Fara filings.Mercury did not respond to multiple requests for comment.Navigators GlobalOn 29 April 2022 Navigators Global, which describes itself as an “issues management, government relations and strategic communications” firm, registered under Fara to represent the committee on national security, defence and intelligence of the Ukrainian parliament. According to the firm’s Fara filing, they reached out to dozens of key members of Congress on behalf of the Ukrainian parliament – including eight phone calls, texts and emails with McCarthy – and contacted the House and Senate armed services committees two dozen times.As Navigators Global was doing this pro-bono lobbying of the policymakers in Congress with, arguably, the greatest sway over US military assistance to Ukraine, the firm was also raking in revenue from Pentagon contractors. Specifically, in 2022 Navigators Global made $830,000 working on behalf of defense contractors, according to lobbying data compiled by OpenSecrets. The firms’ lobbying filings also show that their work for these contractors was directed, among other issues, at the FY23 National Defense Authorization Act, the defense policy bill that increased spending on the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative by half a billion dollars.Navigators Global did not respond to multiple requests for comment.OgilvyOn 26 August 2022 Ogilvy Group, a giant advertising and public relations agency, registered under Fara to work with the ministry of culture and information policy of Ukraine on the ministry’s Advantage Ukraine Initiative. The initiative’s website describes it as the “Investment initiative of the Government of Ukraine”. The top listed investment option is Ukraine’s defense industry. Ogilvy is joined in this endeavor by fellow Fara registrants Group M and Hill & Knowlton Strategies, as well as the marketing company Hogarth Worldwide, which has not registered under Fara.While the Ogilvy Group spread “the message that Ukraine is still open for business”, as its statement of work with the ministry explains, Ogilvy Government Relations was lobbying for Pentagon contractors who paid the firm nearly half a million dollars in 2022. These two Ogilvy organizations are technically separate entities. They are owned by the same parent company, WPP.At least one of the contractors that Ogilvy Government Relations lobbies for, Fluor, would appear to directly benefit from increased US military support for Ukraine and heightened US military presence in Europe more generally. In 2020, the US army’s seventh army training command awarded Fluor with a five-year Logistics Support Services contract, which a Fluor spokesman explained, “positions Fluor for future work with the US European Command and the US Africa Command headquarters located in Germany”. Fluor paid Ogilvy Government Relations $200,000 for lobbying in 2022, according to OpenSecrets.Ogilvy did not respond to a request to comment on the record.As the war in Ukraine heads into its second year, US defense spending continues to balloon. Weapons and defense contractors received nearly half – $400bn – of the $858bn in the 2023 defense budget.“There’s high demand for weapons to transfer to Ukraine and to replenish shrinking US stockpiles … contractors are seeing billions of dollars in Ukraine-related contracts.” said Julia Gledhill, who investigates defense spending at the government watchdog the Project On Government Oversight.TopicsUkraineLobbyingUS politicsArms tradefeaturesReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Why pro-Israel lobby group Aipac is backing election deniers and extremist Republicans

      by

      Why pro-Israel lobby group Aipac is backing election deniers and extremist RepublicansThe group places support for Israel over all over considerations, endorsing extreme rightwing candidates in the midterm elections The US’s largest pro-Israel lobby group is backing dozens of racists, homophobes and election deniers running for Congress next month because they have pledged to defend Israel against stiffening criticism of its oppression of the Palestinians.The powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) has justified endorsing Republicans with extremist views, including members of Congress with ties to white supremacist groups and representatives who attempted to block Joe Biden’s election victory, on the grounds that the singular issue of support for Israel trumps other considerations.But Aipac’s support for rightwing politicians has privately embarrassed some Democrats also endorsed by the powerful group and drawn accusations from more moderate pro-Israel organisations that it is attempting to stifle legitimate criticism of hardline Israeli policies.Pro-Israel lobbying group Aipac secretly pouring millions into defeating progressive DemocratsRead moreLogan Bayroff, a spokesman for J Street, a group campaigning for Washington to take a stronger stand to end the occupation of Palestinian territories, accused Aipac of attempting to impose a narrow definition of what it is to be pro-Israel amid shifting views in Democratic ranks.“Their actions have made clear that they view pro-Israel, pro-peace progressive Democrats as threats – and Trumpist Republicans as allies. That worldview could not be more out of touch with the vast majority of American Jews,” he said.“Aipac may hope to silence and intimidate political leaders who believe that settlement expansion, endless conflict and permanent occupation are harmful to Israel, the Palestinian people and US interests. Ultimately, however, these common-sense views are too popular, widespread and important to be suppressed, and will continue to gain strength within American politics and among the American Jewish community.”Aipac’s backing of extreme rightwing Republicans follows its $27m advertising campaign during the Democratic primaries to defeat candidates who spoke up for Palestinian rights, mostly with attacks over issues that had nothing to do with Israel.The campaign is part of push by more hawkish pro-Israel groups to shore up support in Congress in the face of rising advocacy for the Palestinian cause within the Democratic party and erosion of approval for Israeli actions among American Jews, particularly younger people.Earlier this year, the Israeli foreign ministry director general, Alon Ushpiz, said protecting bipartisan support for the Jewish state in the US was at the top of a list of Israel’s diplomatic priorities amid wider government concern about the impact of a series of international human rights reports that it is practicing a form of apartheid over the Palestinians.Among those candidates endorsed by Aipac is the New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik, a Trump loyalist whose home town newspaper criticised her for “despicable” advertising and “hateful rhetoric” that promoted the racist and antisemitic “great replacement theory”, claiming the US is being flooded with immigrants to outvote white people. The Times Union accused Stefanik of “fear-based political tactics”.Another candidate backed by Aipac, the Pennsylvania congressman Scott Perry, pushed the same theory when he told a foreign affairs committee meeting “native-born” Americans are being replaced in order “to permanently transform the landscape of this very nation”.Aipac has also endorsed other candidates who have associated with QAnon, the far-right conspiracy theory. Among them are the Georgia congressman Buddy Carter, who attended a QAnon-linked rally claiming links between Democrats and child sex rings, and a Florida congresswoman, Kat Cammack, who appeared on QAnon-related channels including Patriots’ Soapbox.Other Republicans backed by Aipac have appeared on Patriots’ Soapbox. They include the Utah congressman Burgess Owens, who has promoted claims by the far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his Infowars website, including anti-migrant diatribes and false claims of election rigging. Owens distributed an Infowars article that smeared the bereaved Muslim father of a US soldier by pushing an unfounded suggestion that his legal work helped the 9/11 hijackers enter the US.Aipac has endorsed Rick Allen, a Georgia congressman who refused to debate a fellow Republican at an Islamic community centre, calling it a “suspect venue”.The hawkish lobby group is also backing candidates known for anti-LGBTQ+ views. They include Mark Green, a Tennessee congressman who once said “transgender is a disease”, as well as members of Congress who denounced the supreme court ruling making marriage equality a right.Aipac’s approved list includes Steve Scalise, who opposed the end of anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in the military, and Randy Weber, who broke down in tears as he begged God to forgive the US for the supreme court judgement.“Father, oh Father, please forgive us,” he pleaded.‘Morally bankrupt’: outrage after pro-Israel group backs insurrectionist RepublicansRead moreAipac support for far-right and homophobic candidates flies in the face of its routine defence of Israel as a liberal democracy surrounded by authoritarian Arab regimes.Pro-Israel groups routinely deflect criticism of what Israel’s leading human rights group, B’Tselem, called its “regime of Jewish supremacy” over Palestinians, systematic discrimination against Israel’s Arab citizens and the recent “nation-state” law that places Jewish identity over democracy, by emphasising Israel’s democratic credentials.Aipac has consistently pushed the message that Israel is “the only LGBTQ+-friendly country in the Middle East”.Last year, during one of Israel’s periodic assaults on Gaza that killed hundreds of Palestinians, the lobby group again resorted to what has become known as “pink washing” when it tweeted: “Do you support LGBTQ+ rights? Hamas doesn’t. Hamas discriminates against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.”Aipac caused upset among its supporters earlier this year when it endorsed more than 100 Republican members of Congress who refused to certify Biden’s 2020 election victory. The list again includes Scott, who voted against awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to officers who defended the Capitol on January 6.Richard Haass, a former US diplomat and president of the Council on Foreign Relations, described the endorsement of politicians who “undermine democracy” as “morally bankrupt and short-sighted”. The former head of the strongly pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League, Abe Foxman, described the endorsement of election deniers as a “sad mistake” .Aipac has defended its backing of extremists on the grounds that support for Israel is more important that other issues.“This is no moment for the pro-Israel movement to become selective about its friends,” the group said in a message to supporters earlier this year.“The one thing that guarantees Israel’s ability to defend itself is the enduring support of the United States. When we launched our political action committee last year, we decided that we would base decisions about political contributions on only one thing: whether a political candidate supports the US-Israel relationship. Not on any other issue – just this one.”Although some Democrats have faced calls to reject Aipac’s endorsement, a senior staffer for one member of Congress said they were not prepared to get into a public confrontation with the lobby group.“Aipac is now an embarrassment but frankly it’s too powerful to go up against,” the staffer said. “We don’t need them pouring money in against us so we hold off on the public criticisms. But that doesn’t mean to say there are not some serious policy differences, particularly on Iran.”Aipac is not alone.The Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) was founded three years ago to bolster support for Israel within the party after polls showed younger supporters increasingly wanted to see Washington take a stronger stand in favour of the Palestinians.Differences within the party were thrown into sharp relief recently when a row blew up over comments by the Palestinian American congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, who said there was a contradiction between backing policies that oppress Palestinians and claiming to be progressive.“I want you all to know that among progressives, it becomes clear that you cannot claim to hold progressive values yet back Israel’s apartheid government,” she told an Americans for Justice in Palestine conference.Although Tlaib’s comments were directed at Israeli government actions, she was denounced by fellow Democrats who accused her of questioning Israel’s right to exist. They included Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a former chair of the Democratic National Committee backed by Aipac and the DMFI.“The outrageous progressive litmus test on Israel by Rashida Tlaib is nothing short of antisemitic. Proud progressives do support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state. Suggesting otherwise is shameful and dangerous. Divisive rhetoric does not lead to peace,” she tweeted.Americans for Peace Now, a sister organisation to Israel’s Peace Now movement, backed Tlaib.“No part of what [Tlaib] said is antisemitic. Weaponizing accusations of antisemitism cheapens the real fight against antisemitism and does nothing to make Jews safer,” it said.Aipac responded to questions about its support of extremist candidates by saying their views on issues other than Israel were not relevant.“Our sole factor for supporting Democratic and Republican candidates is their support for strengthening the US-Israel relationship,” said a spokesman, Marshall Wittmann.“Indeed, our political action committee has supported scores of pro-Israel progressive candidates including over half of the Congressional Black Caucus and Hispanic Caucus and almost half of the Progressive Caucus. Our political involvement has shown that it is entirely consistent with progressive politics to support America’s alliance with our democratic ally, Israel.”TopicsUS political lobbyingUS midterm elections 2022LobbyingUS politicsRepublicansIsraelfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Pro-Israel lobbying group Aipac secretly pouring millions into defeating progressive Democrats

      by

      Pro-Israel lobbying group Aipac secretly pouring millions into defeating progressive DemocratsAmerican Israel Public Affairs Committee has disguised its efforts to undermine pro-Palestinian candidates The US’s most powerful pro-Israel lobby group is pouring millions of dollars into influencing Democratic congressional primary races to counter growing support for the Palestinian cause within the party, including elections today in Pennsylvania and North Carolina.The American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s money is focused on blocking female candidates who, if elected, are likely to align with “the squad” of progressive members of congress who have been critical of Israel.But it is funneled through a group, the United Democracy Project (UDP), that avoids mention of its creation by Aipac and seeks to decide elections by funding campaign messages about issues other than Israel.The UDP has thrown $2.3m in to Tuesday’s Democratic primary race for an open congressional seat in Pennsylvania – one of a handful of contests targeted by the group where a leading candidate is overtly sympathetic to the Palestinians.The money has mostly been spent in support of a former Republican congressional staffer turned Democrat, Steve Irwin, in an attempt to block a progressive state representative, Summer Lee, who is leading in opinion polls in the solidly Democratic district which includes Pittsburgh.Lee has spoken in support of setting conditions for the US’s considerable aid to Israel, has accused Israel of “atrocities” in Gaza, and has drawn parallels between Israeli actions and the shooting of young black men in the US. She is endorsed by Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, members of “the squad” who support the Palestinian cause.Irwin has defended Israeli government policies and questioned whether Lee has “a strong conviction that Israel has a right to exist”.The UDP has also spent $2m in support of North Carolina state senator Valeria Foushee in today’s Democratic primary in an attempt to block Nida Allam, the political director of Senator Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign and the first Muslim American woman to hold elected office in North Carolina. Allam has participated in pro-Palestinian rallies and has been endorsed by members of the squad. She has also spoken out against antisemitism.Aipac launched the UDP in December as a super political action committee, or Super Pac, which is permitted to spend without restriction in support of candidates but cannot make direct donations to campaigns.The lobby group’s move into financial support for political campaigns for the first time in its 70 year history was prompted by alarm in Washington and Israel at the erosion of longstanding bipartisan support for the Jewish state in the US.Opinion polls show younger Democrats are growing more critical of Israel, including American Jews, and that there is rising support for the Boycott, Sanctions and Divest (BDS) movement.Israel is also concerned by the breaking of a longstanding taboo on comparing Israel’s domination of the Palestinians to apartheid South Africa after the publication of a series of international and Israeli human rights groups reports accusing Israel of practicing a form of apartheid.The UDP has also spent $1.2m to protect the Texas Democratic congressman, Henry Cuellar, who faces a run-off later next week against Jessica Cisneros, a 28-year-old immigration lawyer who has spoken in support of the Palestinians and is endorsed by members of the squad.Cuellar is described as an ally by Aipac and co-founded the Congressional Caucus for the Advancement of Torah Values to combat “anti-Israel bigotry”.After Amnesty International joined other human rights groups in accusing Israel of imposing apartheid, Cuellar accused the group of endangering Jews. “Israel is not an apartheid state. Full stop. These inaccuracies incite antisemitic behavior against the Jewish people,” he tweeted.A smaller and more liberal pro-Israel group, J-Street, has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of Cisneros, saying she is committed to a more just solution to the conflict with the Palestinians.J-Street’s spokesperson, Logan Bayroff, accused Aipac of being a Republican front organisation that strongly supported Donald Trump, and of attempting to intimidate candidates into avoiding criticism of Israel by implicitly threatening to fund campaigns against them.“Aipac are taking all this money from Republican donors, and they’re obfuscating the fact that they’re a very Republican-aligned organisation while trying to persuade Democratic voters who they should support,” he said.“The United Democracy Project sounds innocuous and the advertising that they’re running in these districts is about healthcare and reproductive rights and things that have nothing to do with Israel. Which makes sense because those are the things that decide elections, not Israel. But the reason that they’re aligning with certain candidates is because they are more aligned with their more hawkish positions on Israel, and because they fear that other candidates will be more progressive and aligned with the Palestinians.”A UDP spokesman, Patrick Dorton, said the group was doing no more than running legitimate political advertising. “All we are doing is talking about candidate’s public record and that is something voters deserve to know,” he said.Dorton said the group will be funding more campaigns.“Our goal is to build the broadest bipartisan coalition in congress that supports the US-Israel relationship. We are proud to support pro-Israel progressive candidates including women of color,” he said. “We are looking at 10 to 15 other races where there is a pro-Israel candidate and a candidate that, if elected, would undermine the US-Israel relationship.”Earlier this year, Aipac was accused by other leading supporters of Israel of being “morally bankrupt” and of putting Israel’s interests ahead of American democracy after it launched a separate political action committee that endorsed 37 Republicans candidates who voted against certifying Biden’s victory after the 6 January 2021 storming of the Capitol.Aipac said that it supports politicians from both parties who will “advance the US-Israel relationship.“It requires bipartisan support in Congress to adopt legislation that would advance that relationship. Consequently, we support members from both parties in their election races. In addition to the Republicans we have supported, we have made contributions to over 120 House Democrats, including half of the Congressional Black Caucus, half of the House Progressive Caucus, and the top Democratic leaders in the House,” Aipac said in a statement.TopicsLobbyingIsraelPalestinian territoriesUS midterm elections 2022US politicsnewsReuse this content More