Individual Donors Give to Pro-Israel PACs, Again to PACs’ Chosen Candidates

By Laurence A. Toenjes

As a percentage of total contributions to federal candidates, pro-Israel political action committee (PAC) campaign contributions are not particularly large—especially when compared with the total cost of federal elections. The 2006 federal mid-term election, for example, was estimated to have cost $2.8 billion by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). This would put the $3,277,693 contributed by pro-Israel PACs (see July 2007 Washington Report, pp. 19-24) at about only 0.12 percent of that total.

Of course, bullets are not very large, either. Their effectiveness depends upon how well they are aimed at a body’s vital spots.

While the $3.3 million in pro-Israel PAC contributions was spread among hundreds of candidates for the House and Senate in 2006, much of it was targeted at a relatively small number of candidates. For example, of the 271 candidates receiving these contributions in the 2005-2006 election cycle, the 21 who received the most in pro-Israel PAC funds averaged approximately $68,000 each, while the remaining 251 candidates averaged only about $6,000 each. In other words, by giving modest “retainers” to the vast majority to whom they contributed, the pro-Israel PACs could give substantial amounts—enough, perhaps, to make a difference in close elections—to a handful of candidates.

Moreover, a strong case can be made that the total amount of pro-Israel contributions to candidates for federal office is substantially greater than the $3.3 million in direct PAC contributions made in 2005-2006. For starters, if the same individuals who provided the support to pro-Israel PACs also contributed directly to the same candidates who received pro-Israel PAC money, it could be argued that those individuals likely received guidance from those PACs as to where their additional funds would be the most useful.

Using individual contribution data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for the 2005-2006 election cycle, this writer identified some 3,000 individuals who contributed to the 35 PACs identified as being “pro-Israel” by the CRP. Total contributions of these individuals to the PACs totaled almost exactly $5 million—from which the pro-Israel PACs made their own contributions of $3.3 million to various House and Senate candidates. This left them with some $1.7 million to use for various other expenses such as travel, banquets and other social events, and mailouts soliciting more money.

The additional contributions amplify the impact of the targeting decisions made by the PACs themselves.

But it doesn’t stop there. The same individuals who gave $5 million to the pro-Israel PACs also gave another $5 million in individual campaign contributions to the same candidates to whom the PACs made their contributions. Furthermore, these individual contributions tended to be in greater amounts to candidates who received the larger amounts from the pro-Israel PACs—i.e., the two sets of contributions were significantly correlated. The net effect of these additional contributions was to amplify the impact of the targeting decisions made by the PACs themselves. They made the bullets larger, more deadly.

It might be argued that it was mere coincidence that those individuals who gave money to pro-Israel PACs just happened to direct their independent contributions to the same list of candidates. However, again using FEC data, it was determined that $3.2 million of the additional $5 million in individual contributions went to candidates in states other than the states in which the contributors resided. This strongly suggests a carefully designed network of information dissemination and control influencing these interstate contributions for House and Senate seats.

The Lieberman Network

A case in point is that of Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s 2006 re-election race. As is widely known, Lieberman was defeated in the Connecticut Democratic Party primary election by Ned Lamont. But with the aid of an enormous influx of out-of-state contributions and a weak Republican candidate, Lieberman, running as an Independent, beat Lamont in the general election. According to figures posted on the CRP Web site (<www.opensecrets.org>), Lieberman received more than $20 million in contributions in 2005-2006, with over $17 million coming from individual contributors. Of this, 80 percent came from individuals who did not reside in Connecticut. The CRP data also show Lieberman receiving $156,593 from pro-Israel PACs for this election. Further analysis revealed that the individuals identified as contributing to the pro-Israel PACs were found to have contributed $958,134 to Lieberman, with 97.5 percent coming from outside Connecticut. The word was certainly out across the country to support Lieberman, previously a Democrat, against his Democratic opponent.

One result of Lieberman’s victory in 2006 was that he determined which party would control the Senate for the following two years. Had he sided with the Republicans the Senate would have been equally split between the two parties, with Republican Vice President Dick Cheney casting the deciding vote in the case of a tie. This, of course, gave Lieberman enormous influence on matters pertaining to Middle East policy, his top priority.

If, as seems likely, the Democrats pick up one or more additional seats in the Senate in this year’s elections, Lieberman will no longer be in the catbird seat in that body. This may help explain his support of John McCain’s presidential candidacy. A victory by McCain might be Lieberman’s only chance to maintain his influence over Middle East policy, possibly as a member of a McCain administration. His role now is to try to persuade his Jewish supporters to vote for McCain. In addition, Lieberman will do what he can to persuade those contributors who gave his 2005-2006 campaign $17 million to redirect their financial support to McCain this year.

Laurence A.Toenjes, who received his doctorate in economics from Southern Illinois University, is retired from the University of Houston’s Department of Sociology, where he was a researcher with The Sociology of Education Research Group.