Debate on Single-issue Pacs

A forum on Jewish political power erupted into a sharp debate on “single-issue PACs” Sunday night at the American Jewish Congress’ 1986 National Biennial Convention here at the Shoreham Hotel.

Rep. Barney Frank (D. Mass.), asserting that more than 80 percent of members of Congress support Israel and do so for moral, not financial reasons, charged that pro-Israel, single-issue PACs often end up being “shaken down” by politicians who would not change their position even if denied PAC funds. Giving campaign funds to such officeholders or candidates “is too often a waste,” he said.

“You don’t buy support for Israel with Jewish money,” he said. “That’s what our enemies say. We get support for Israel because it is in the moral and strategic interest of the United States to support the Jewish State.” Too frequently, he went on, pro-Israel PACs will support candidates who, except for their support of Israel, differ sharply with the Jewish community on such issues as school prayer and abortion.

Other forum panelists addressing the 500 AJCongress delegates from across the nation were Richard Altman, director of the National Political Action Committee (NatPAC), one of the largest pro-Israel committees; political analyst Ben Wattenberg; and Lynn Cutler, vice chairperson of the Democratic National Committee.

IMPORTANCE OF PRO-ISRAEL CONTRIBUTIONS

Altman, responding to Frank’s charge, asserted that “everything is not okay with U.S.-Israel relations.” He cited the 1981 Congressional vote in favor of the AWACS sale to Saudi Arabia in 1981 and contended that support for the sale “came from legislators from states like Wyoming, Montana and Arkansas.” The Jewish community, he noted, cannot afford to ignore legislators and candidates from such areas and it is important for the Jewish community to encourage support of Israel through political contributions.

Wattenberg noted that the United States is a nation of special-interest groups that must make trade-offs on political issues. In some instances, this may involve difficult compromises, he suggested. “If 90 percent of a Congressman’s supporters are for school prayer, and he is for Israel, then you shouldn’t withhold money because of his position on school prayer,” he said. He also asserted that the Jewish community itself is split on a number of domestic issues.

Frank replied that in instances where pro-Israel candidates are running against each other, American Jews should support the candidate who best represents their position on non-Israel issues.

OTHER CONCERNS VOICED

Wattenberg declared that “the most important thing for Israel is a strong, assertive United States policy around the world.” For that reason, he added, opposition by liberals to defense spending and other aspects of an aggressive American policy has been counterproductive.

Wattenberg criticized those who he claimed want Israel to be treated as a special case in terms of American foreign policy. “Israel is part of the world,” he said. “The U.S. has a global foreign policy that cannot be put into compartments, one for Israel and another for the rest of the world.”

Frank retorted that many of those demanding an assertive policy in other parts of the world were far from favoring an aggressive American stance in opposing apartheid in South Africa.

Cutler argued against a perception of single-issue support for Israel. “The concern I have these days,” she said, “is that we (the Jewish community) will be seen as a single-issue community. We should make a clear statement that we are interested in and will give money for other issues.”

While she accepted the concept of single-issue PACs for Israel, she said the Jewish community should go beyond that to show concern on other issues. She urged the Jewish community to continue its long tradition of social concern and commitment.