Despite the current Republican hold on Congress, the majority of Jewish money is flowing the way of Democratic candidates in the ’96 election campaign.
A trend early in the election cycle favored Republican candidates, with pro- Israel political action committees for the first time giving a majority of their outlays to GOP incumbents.
But the most recent statistics available from the Federal Election Commission show a turnaround, with Democrats — the traditional recipients of most Jewish dollars — now pulling in about 54 percent of all direct contributions to candidates from pro-Israel PACs.
As of Oct. 1, the PACs, some of which also consider domestic issues when distributing their funds, had contributed $1.3 million directly to candidates of both parties.
The contributions are finding their way into several tight races across the country, as well as a handful of secure contests that involve congressional leaders with records showing solid support for Israel.
Among the leading recipients, the funds are more or less evenly distributed between Jewish and non-Jewish members of Congress.
“Basically, you look for people who are on important committees with seniority who have been very consistently supportive” of the Jewish state, said Morris Amitay, founder and treasurer of Washington PAC, which had, as of Oct. 1, distributed about $120,000 to congressional candidates.
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) has been the top recipient of pro- Israel PAC funding in the House with about $25,000 in direct contributions. PAC officials cite his solid record on Israel and say they are backing him for obvious reasons.
Among House Democrats, Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.) has led the way with more than $15,000 in contributions. In that race, the distribution of anti-Semitic literature identifying Filner as an “Anti-Christ Jew for Congress” prompted a flood of Jewish contributions.
The PAC contributions represent only a small part of the Jewish community’s political giving.
Millions of dollars more flow from Jewish donors to candidates in the form of direct contributions from individuals; “bundled” individual contributions gathered by PACs and distributed to candidates in lump sums; and soft money – – unlimited contributions individuals make to political parties that are then dispersed without restriction to benefit various campaigns.
But only PAC funds can be reliably and immediately traced. FEC records tracking pro-Israel PAC dollars thus provide the only reliable measure of how the Jewish community is apportioning its dollars in the ’96 campaign.
Overall campaign contributions from the pro-Israel PACs have so far fallen short of the $2.3 million distributed prior to the 1994 election. Although the flow of contributions generally increases in the month leading up to the election, this election cycle is still expected to produce fewer pro-Israel PAC dollars than the last.
The drop is in keeping with a sharp decline in contributions in recent years that has accompanied progress toward Middle East peace.
Most Jewish fund raising traditionally revolves around “crisis situations” but an increasingly secure Israel has removed the “sense of urgency,” said Chuck Brooks, executive director of National PAC.
Fund raising by the 34 pro-Israel PACs has dropped steadily from $6.7 million in 1990 to $4 million in 1992 and $2.3 million in 1994.
PACs aside, political fund raising among Jewish contributors in this election cycle has not shown significant signs of decline, according to Scott Gale, president of the Fundraising Management Group, a Democratic fund-raising consulting firm.
However, because there are no Senate races this year in New York or California, or races elsewhere that “capture the imagination” of the Jewish community, there is naturally “less Jewish money in politics,” Gale said.
Despite a majority of Jewish funding going toward Democrats, Republicans continue to receive donations from pro-Israel interest groups at record levels. Their 46 percent share of the pro-Israel PAC funding represents a sharp increase from previous elections when Republicans generally received about 30 percent of the pro-Israel PAC dollars.
PAC officials say the shift in funding is simply a reflection of the political landscape. Traditionally, interest groups give to the incumbent powerholders – – in this case, to GOP lawmakers holding senior leadership positions and key committee chairmanships.
But as the election approaches, pro-Israel PACs — indeed all PACs — have begun to spread their wealth around, with one eye on the prospect of the Democrats taking back one or both houses of Congress.
“Contributors want to make sure they give to whoever is going to win,” said Sheila Krumholz, project director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a non- partisan organization that examines the role of money in politics.
Most PAC officials reject that characterization.
“We’re not really in the business of projecting winners,” said Brooks of NATPAC, the largest pro-Israel PAC. “We’re in the business of helping friends.”
NATPAC remains the only pro-Israel PAC favoring GOP incumbents, with nearly two-thirds of its $300,000 total in contributions going toward Republicans, according to FEC figures.
By contrast, the other 33 pro-Israel PACs have favored Democrats with about 60 percent of their contributions.
Although support for Israel reaches across party lines, when it comes to views on abortion, the separation of church and state and preserving the social benefits safety net — issues that many of the pro-Israel PACs also weigh – – Democrats are generally considered more in step with the mainstream Jewish community.
This phenomenon upsets those on the other side.
“A lot of these PACs are placing their partisan biases ahead of what the real interests of Jewish community are,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the National Jewish Coalition, a Republican group.
Sounding optimistic that the Republicans will continue to control the House and the Senate in the 105th Congress, Brooks said, “It doesn’t make sense to invest a majority of your funds in the minority party. The people that are going to affect real change and are going to make a real difference are the Republican leaders in Congress.”
A further look at the dispersal of direct contributions from pro-Israel PACs in the ’96 campaign shows funds going to longtime friends of the Jewish community.
In addition to Gingrich, House Republicans receiving more than $10,000 include Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-N.Y.), a strong supporter of Israel who chairs the House International Relations Committee, and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), whom Jewish donors have sought to reward for taking a vocal stand against Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Rep. Bill Paxon (R-N.Y.) and Rep. John Edward Porter (R-III.) have also received about $10,000 each.
Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas), whose campaign has faced additional challenges due to a Supreme Court decision that redrew his district in the middle of the race, has also been a leading recipient of pro-Israel PAC dollars, with contributions totaling nearly $12,000.
Other incumbent Democrats with strong pro-Israel records receiving $10,000 or more from PACs include House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.).
In the Senate, contributions soar even higher, with about two-thirds of pro- Israel PAC money going to the more influential chamber.
Six incumbents — Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), John Warner (R-Va.) and Larry Pressler (R-S.D.) — have so far totaled nearly $500,000 in PAC money.
PACs can donate a maximum of $5,000 to each congressional candidate for the primaries and a maximum of $5,000 for a general election, for a total of $10,000 per election cycle.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
