Posted on 09/20/2015 6:49:35 AM PDT by Kaslin
When Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) became the 34th vote in favor of the Iran Deal, it was touted as sealing the support for the President Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative. It was fascinating for two reasons. First, that such a major policy was being adopted despite bi-partisan rejection. Second, the analysis started to flow of how the powerful lobbying organization, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), had lost such a major political battle. More importantly, what will AIPAC do now that the deal has been backhandedly approved?
Once the Iran deal was approved by the negotiators many supporters of Israel decided to attempt to thwart the adoption of it. Since President Obama refused to submit it as a treaty -- which would require a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate – I, like many other commentators, determined there would never be enough Democrats in the Senate to vote against the passage. Many organizations that support Israel organized to lobby to defeat the agreement, but none was as visible as AIPAC which coordinated a campaign backed by $40 million.
The battle ensued between the President, his allies and AIPAC and like-minded organizations. AIPAC summoned many of its top leaders to Washington for a high-level meeting and lobbying of Congress with an estimated 700 in attendance. During the planned time for lobbying Congress, the President invited AIPAC to the White House for a briefing. The organization saw right through it as a typical Alinskyesque move by Obama and his team. A non-authorized spokesperson from the organization spoke to Politico and told them “It wasn't a friendly White House invitation in my mind. Forget about ID'ing all 700 activists and donors on the White House visitor logs, I think the White House's main motivation was to hold the group up with security lines and long speeches from Administration officials so that we would have less time to lobby members of Congress. When AIPAC told the officials to come to the hotel instead, the White House asked for an additional Q&A period which would have further delayed us. AIPAC declined, citing lack of time, and so the White House then invited members of Congress to meet with the President that same day, conflicting with some previously scheduled AIPAC appointments."
Even before the non-defeat of the plan occurred by acceptance of enough Democratic senators, the effect upon AIPAC had been analyzed throughout the press. In a Washington Post column, a spokesperson for J Street, Dylan Williams, a left-wing group which claims it is supportive of Israel, stated “The lesson that lawmakers have learned from this experience is that right-leaning pro-Israel groups are not immortal. Blood can be drawn. And it is possible to stand and
say ‘no’ to them. And not suffer political consequences.”
That is the question going forward – will there be consequences? The first reaction was actually to start shifting blame for the loss to others with the initial target being Prime Minister Netanyahu. An official from AIPAC is quoted in the Times of Israel: “Netanyahu’s speech in Congress made the Iranian issue a partisan one,” the AIPAC official told Israel’s Walla news. This was immediately refuted by AIPAC’s spokesman Marshall Wittmann.”
This is a common political tactic – roll out an unnamed spokesperson and then a named spokesperson disavows the comment, but the damage is done already. A former AIPAC staff person confirmed my suspicions of the source of the anti-Netanyahu comment. The former staffer stated “There are three people authorized to speak to the press for AIPAC. Those three are the National President, currently Bob Cohen, Executive Director Howard Kohr and Marshall Wittmann. Any media outlet will quote what they say. It appears one of the three gave the Netanyuhu quote. Anyone else speaking to the press knows it is a fireable offense.”
Democrats in the Senate are already attempting to placate Israel by offering money. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has taken the lead in this movement. She is somewhat on the hot seat coming from New York which has a large Jewish population, and she voted for the deal as opposed to her fellow New York Senator Charles Schumer.
The real test for AIPAC is whether they will take up arms against the incumbents who voted for the deal. AIPAC likes to say that “We have friends and potential friends.” Others have stated that AIPAC is in the incumbent protection racket as they don’t challenge incumbents they deem to be friends. But this is certainly the biggest vote any member of Congress has made regarding the survival of Israel. Many think that the members of Congress who voted for the deal did so because they believe they could do so with impunity.
AIPAC people will immediately disavow that they raise money for political campaigns which would impair their non-profit status. Their power comes from two sources. First, the huge annual meeting in Washington which has swollen to over 10,000 people who attend educational sessions, listen to world leaders, and then descend onto Capitol Hill to lobby for the current hot-button issues of the organization. Second, from the ability of their members to bundle political contributions for friendly candidates.
A perfect scenario for the organization will be the reelection campaign of Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO). He is the most vulnerable senator up in 2016 and he voted for the Iran deal. The former AIPAC staffer stated “He is a big target. The question is will they authorize money going to his Republican opponent, withhold money from him or continue supporting him despite his vote for the Iran deal.”
Tom Dine, former executive director of AIPAC and supporter of the Iran deal, wrote in Foreign Affairs that AIPAC should makes amends with the supporters of the deal like they did after AIPAC lost the AWACS vote in 1981. Facts have changed though. AIPAC is a much more powerful organization today. They have enemies. More importantly, would any major lobbying group make nice-nice with elected officials after losing such a symbolic issue. The NRA would not roll over neither would the insurance lobby. They would focus on defeating the people who voted against them.
We will soon see how real the strength of AIPAC is, especially with its enemies out for blood. If they don’t punish someone for their vote supporting the Iran deal, they risk being seen as a paper tiger where there are no consequences if you cross them especially on such a visible policy fight on which they took such a staunch stand. This could be a make it or break it time for AIPAC.
Just being placated with more money for Israel and running out to a microphone to take credit for that will not do the trick.
I have suspected that the Obama administration has tampered with most polls. Beware the coming elections. Fraud will be the order of the day.
Great find - thanks. Catching up on news after my husband was in the hospital for nearly a week.
I am tired of ‘pacs’ attempting to buy the votes of those that i vote into office, to represent ME.
Do i give a hoot whether this ‘aipac’ shivers their timbers, dumps a load or not? No.
I see this as a backdoor means for another foreign government to place influence on the federal government, which is responsible to ME, not them.
If this ‘aipac’ is representative of the American jewish population, interfering with the politics of the nation, as some have said in the past, then I can see how many folks hold these folks in contempt by association.
AIPAC should support primary challengers for every anti American that voted for Corker’s bill.
AIPAC supported Corker’s bill.
In a Washington Post column, a spokesperson for J Street, Dylan Williams, a left-wing group which claims it is supportive of Israel, stated "The lesson that lawmakers have learned from this experience is that right-leaning pro-Israel groups are not immortal. Blood can be drawn. And it is possible to stand and say 'no' to them. And not suffer political consequences." ...will there be consequences? The first reaction was actually to start shifting blame for the loss to others with the initial target being Prime Minister Netanyahu. An official from AIPAC is quoted in the Times of Israel: "Netanyahu's speech in Congress made the Iranian issue a partisan one," the AIPAC official told Israel's Walla news. This was immediately refuted by AIPAC's spokesman Marshall Wittmann. This is a common political tactic – roll out an unnamed spokesperson and then a named spokesperson disavows the comment, but the damage is done already. A former AIPAC staff person confirmed my suspicions of the source of the anti-Netanyahu comment. The former staffer stated "There are three people authorized to speak to the press for AIPAC. Those three are the National President, currently Bob Cohen, Executive Director Howard Kohr and Marshall Wittmann. Any media outlet will quote what they say. It appears one of the three gave the Netanyuhu quote. Anyone else speaking to the press knows it is a fireable offense."IOW, AIPAC *is* J Street?
Michael Bennet (D-CO)...is the most vulnerable senator up in 2016 and he voted for the Iran deal. The former AIPAC staffer stated "He is a big target. The question is will they authorize money going to his Republican opponent, withhold money from him or continue supporting him despite his vote for the Iran deal."The problem is, my son, the doctah -- abortion is a sacrament, as long as they can keep living on their four acres in CT, have their big offices and philanthropies in NYC, and their cars. Less offensively, they support the entire rest of the Demagogic Party agenda, right out to the bare walls. And more revelatory yet -- the most vicious anti-Zionists may be Demwits (Ellison of MN for example) but the good old fashioned Jew hatred mostly lives in old line RINOs like James Baker. Y'think the Corker deal was embraced by AIPAC?
We will soon see how real the strength of AIPAC is, especially with its enemies out for blood. If they don't punish someone for their vote supporting the Iran deal, they risk being seen as a paper tiger where there are no consequences if you cross them especially on such a visible policy fight on which they took such a staunch stand. This could be a make it or break it time for AIPAC. Just being placated with more money for Israel and running out to a microphone to take credit for that will not do the trick.So, the election of 2016 will, in part, be a defacto referendum on AIPAC. How do you think they'll do?
AIPAC, you were always a Democrat group, and they screwed over you.
Recent articles say over 50 national Jewish groups oppose this deal and 10 support it.
I propose that every Jewish congressman and senator who voted for this receive ZERO funding from all the organization opposed to the deal.
And furthermore, that they face primary challenges from
NEVER AGAIN type Jews. This vote will lead to a Nuke Holocaust when Iran nukes Israel.
These Jewish Capos deserve a rebuke, traitors all.
AIPAC, some things are more important than the Democrat Party.
AIPAC wasted not only a mere $40 million dollars in its unsuccessful effort to get the anti-Israel Iran treaty disapproved, it also previously wasted untold hundreds of millions helping to elect the very Democratic Congressmen and Senators who voted for the treaty.
The Democrats have proven to be an anti-Israel party, so any campaign contributions AIPAC makes to Democrats in the future will prove that AIPAC is an anti-Israel organization.
As if there aren’t already enough anti-Israel organizations in the world, from Hamas to Hezbollah to the United Nations to American Democrats and British Labourites, yet AIPAC seems determined to join the crowd by continuing to support America’s anti-Israel party.
Wow. I guess they got the results they deserve.That vote was a blank check for Obama with no possible positive for America or Israel. What’s worse is that the Senate isn’t even holding Obama to his nearly nonexistent obligations.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
AIPAC is a non partisan organization welcoming both Republicans and Democrats, as they should.
I find it humorous to see them described on FR as a Democrat group, on the left and the mainstream media they're described as pro-Republican and pro-Likud.
They'll do now what they've always done. I find the characterization by the media of the vote as a great Obama victory interesting since the "agreement" would have been voted down as a treaty, and would have been voted down as simple legislation requiring a majority of each house. Obama hoodwinked the GOP earlier this year in the legislation requiring a super majority to defeat the "agreement", which has no legal status extending beyond the current administration. Not the first time the GOP has been hoodwinked
If you don't like the 501c3 structure, then you must also hold in contempt hundreds of like organizations from the NRA to Army Emergency Relief to Judicial Watch. Even JPFO.
It's a great idea, just finding them will be difficult. There's blind anti-Christian anti-midwesterner anti-rural prejudice to overcome, and I'm not optimistic that it will be.
dear sjackson,
It is funny that you mentioned the mulatto queer-in-charge administration, the most lawless and U.S. constitution-hating organism to breathe air, on the face of the planet!
I hold in contempt ANY churches taht flat-out RAN to their local IRS office, just to obtain their 503c ‘existence permit’, from the atheist federal government. If they GOTTA have that tax-exempt status, then they are NOT really depending on God, as the book says, are they?
I dislike PACs, because they do not represent John Q. and Jane Q. Public, directly.
The NRA is not a PAC, by the way, and it is NOT the ONLY Second Amendment organization.
Yes, I pointed that out to you, it's a 501c3 just like AIPAC. Nor is it the only one. I mentioned Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, which like AIPAC and the NRA is a 501c organization. And none of them are pacs. Churches usually don't bother with any of the 501c designations, Churches are automatically exempt per the IRS. Religious associated issue advocacy groups, like pro life organizations, they apply for tax exempt status since they are not Churches
dear sjack,
re;
“Churches are automatically exempt per the IRS. “
Not so, if you look at the history of the Bush administration. Churches were being investigated by the IRS, probing into what was being said from the pulpit, and whether that which came forth, was too political and not enough spiritual. These churches had 503c status.
Churches (including integrated auxiliaries and conventions or associations of churches) that meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of exempt status from the IRS. Donors are allowed to claim a charitable deduction for donations to a church that meets the section 501(c)(3) requirements even though the church has neither sought nor received IRS recognition that it is tax exempt. In addition, because churches and certain other religious organizations are not required to file an annual return or notice with the IRS, they are not subject to automatic revocation of exemption for failure to file. See Annual Return Filing Exceptions for a complete list of organizations that are not required to file.
And yes, since Churches, registered or not, cannot make political endorsements, there have been and probably will continue to be investigations. Registered or not, they're government by the same regulations.
We've come a long way from whether of not AIPAC is a PAC, which it's not. Personally, I'd dump the entire charitable deduction thing from the tax code, which I'd dump too. If a non profit is non profit they'll pay no taxes. And if losing deductability means lower tax rates, that's more income that people can donate to the institutions they wish. Particularly in the education field, institutions have acquired massive endowments, which provide donors with tax deductions, but little for students. There are selective Ivy league institutions which don't need to charge tuition at all, earnings on their endowments, the accumulation of which raised my tax bill, could pay or reduce them. It's a messed up system. Even on the charitable side, which along with mortgage interest, no reformer will touch.
Live by the jackass, die by the jackass.
dear sjack,
I believe that we can agree that ‘the tax code’ and the, ahem ‘regulatory authority’ of it, must be scrapped.
I like Trump’s suggested new tax plan, but then, being retired, i’m in the ‘under 30’ bracket.
Now, next question ..... are you aware of churches that are ‘LLC’d’?
Generally, sometimes organized as foundations too, but I’m not too familiar with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.