Pro-Israel and Arab- and Muslim-American PAC Contributions for the Year 2000 Election Cycle

By Hugh S. Galford

The following charts summarize donations by pro-Israel and Arab-/ Muslim-American PACs to congressional candidates during the 1999-2000 election cycle. The first thing to notice are the totals: pro-Israel PACs donated $2,044,606, while Arab-/ Muslim-American PACs gave $113,881. Although outspent 18:1, Arab-/ Muslim-American PACs in 2000 spent more than 25 percent of the total funds they have contributed since their inceptions.

Both groups of PACs were very active in the last few months of the election: pro-Israel PACs donated to an additional 88 candidates, and Arab-/ Muslim-American PACs to 38 more candidates, in the second half of 2000. By party, pro-Israel PACs donated to 1 Libertarian, 1 Reform, 123 Republicans and 188 Democrats (including Minnesota’s DFLs), while Arab-/ Muslim-American PACs supported 1 Reform, 1 Independent, 11 Republicans and 43 Democrats.

Contributions for the presidential race raise three interesting points. First is that Gore/Lieberman received nothing, in keeping with their decision not to accept PAC donations. As Janet McMahon noted in the October/November 2000 issue, Sen. Joseph Lieberman was able to raise millions through speaking engagements; such soft money, however, is nigh-on untraceable. Second is that, in the early days of the campaign, even Sen. John McCain—the champion of campaign finance reform—received $1,000.

Thirdly, the Muslim bloc vote for Bush/Cheney did not translate into bloc money; pro-Israel PACs gave Bush $8,200, while Arab-/Muslim-American PACs contributed a mere $218 in independent expenditures. (Independent expenditures are monies spent for or against a candidate, without consulting the candidate as to the money’s use. Arab-/Muslim-American PACs’ independent expenditures were spent on mailing campaigns.)

While we all know that money can’t buy you love, can it buy you a congressional seat? Not always. The three major losers among the top 10 recipients of pro-Israel PAC funds were Robb (#1) and Gorton (#3) in the Senate, and Gejdenson (#2) in the House. Others who lost Senate elections include Abraham, Ashcroft, Franks, Grams, Lazio and Weygand—despite receiving more money from pro-Israel PACs than their opponents. There were fewer such defeats in House races; only Colorado’s sixth district race clearly matches the pattern.

Given the money involved, the number of PACs declined sharply this cycle, continuing the recent trend. Twelve pro-Israel and three Arab-/Muslim-American PACs were terminated in the last two years. Only 53 pro-Israel and two Arab-/ Muslim-American PACs are currently registered—and not all of these are active.

It will be interesting to watch PAC numbers—both donations and number in existence—in the coming cycle. Should the McCain-Feingold version of campaign finance reform become law, soft money donations will be curtailed, forcing donors to increase “hard money” donations to individual candidates or to finance issue ad campaigns and direct mail efforts. As Sharon Samber writes in an April 3, 2001, article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the bill “would return some of the influence that PACs lost over the last decade—particularly in recent years, when soft money began to proliferate.”

As long as the PACs can be identified, McCain-Feingold will make it easier to follow the money.

Hugh S. Galford is director of the AET Book Club and compiler of PAC contributions.