Track AIPAC, an advocacy group that is popular for publicizing officials’ funding from Israel lobby groups such as AIPAC, has reversed course and is now endorsing Connie Chan in her bid for Congress after publicly denouncing her three days before the June primary.
The group had drawn attention to a convoluted money trail from two pro-Israel political action committees to a $475,000 ad buy in favor of Chan, accusing her of being tied to pro-Israel lobbyists.
It now says Chan is sufficiently critical of Israel to earn its endorsement.
“Connie has signed our candidate questionnaire, affirming that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people and that Congress must end U.S. complicity in it and hold those responsible to account,” stated Track AIPAC, also named Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption, in a statement today.
It’s unclear whether Chan’s former rival, Saikat Chakrabarti, played a role in Track AIPAC pulling for Chan. One of Track AIPAC’s co-founders, Cory Archibald, is a longtime acquaintance of Chakrabarti and served as a former chairperson of Brand New Congress, a political action committee Chakrabarti co-founded.
Track AIPAC has become known online for posting vivid graphics of elected officials and candidates alongside the total amounts they were given by AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a long-time pro-Israel group.
Track AIPAC had endorsed Chakrabarti in the primary and attacked Chan — Chakrabarti’s biggest rival for second place — before the election. Chakrabarti lost and subsequently endorsed Chan, saying “I’m gonna do what I can to help her win.”
The group said that Chan’s rival in the race to succeed Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Scott Wiener, did not return its endorsement questionnaire.
“Wiener’s positions on these issues have been continuously unclear, and where he has taken a stance, he has stopped well short of what accountability requires,” said the anti-AIPAC advocacy group.
Specifically, Wiener does not support a full stop to arms sales to Israel; he condemns selling offensive weapons, but supports the sale of defensive missile systems.
Wiener has publicly stated that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Track AIPAC’s statement, however, does not directly address the group’s criticism of Chan before the primary, nor why it has reversed court. It says that Chan has committed to “refusing all money from pro-Israel lobby groups, including AIPAC, DMFI, RJC,” a stance she had taken before.
An endorsement like this could help further differentiate Chan from Wiener on the issue of Gaza, and potentially help consolidate Chakrabarti’s progressive and pro-Palestinian supporters, who may otherwise sit out the general election, behind Chan.
After news of the donation from two pro-Israel PACs to a group that bought pro-Chan ads, criticism of Chan for supposed pro-Israel ties went viral among leftists online, including among many in San Francisco. The endorsement could undo that perception.
The endorsement could also be a reconciliation between the core supporters of Chan and Chakrabarti’s. The money trail that Chakrabarti and his allies made public in the last stretch before the primary racked up millions of views.
Chakrabarti himself interpreted it as, “AIPAC sees me as their biggest threat, so they will do whatever it takes to try to defeat me.”
The tiny differences between these two careerist, ambitious politicians on israel policy is what i, as an average sf citizen, should think is important? Wake me up when this one is over: i am sitting it out.
Yeah, because they were given information that she was sent AIPAC money which alerted them, and they then rectified that when it was clear she rejected the donation. I’m much more willing to give them leniency than I am for people who greedily accept AIPAC money and try to whitewash the evils of Israel like Haley Stevens, who I deeply hope loses her re-election because she’s fucking awful.
Connie Chan, Chakrabarti, and Track AIPAC, blah, blah, blah — in a nutshell, it’s just more of the “Narcissism of Small Differences” — San Francisco Style.
The fact of the matter is that Chan would be as ineffectual at the national level as she has been locally.
Time to put her out of our collective misery — and end her political career (as we did with Peskin and Preston) — once and for all.
GO WIENER!
Karl, I would agree that Chan is a lightweight and lacks the gravitas to be effective in DC. Wiener fits that role like a glove.
And all this nonsense about Israel is irrelevant. People don’t choose candidates based on conflicts thousands of miles away. They choose on the economy, housing, education, public safety etc.
What if people prefer their tax money to be spent on schools and public transit instead of Israel?
“Go recent acknowledgement of actual apartheid, genocide, starvation and rape”
? Wiener has yet to address the fulsome horrors of this current Israeli “government” but at least he’s pro himself? Did he lower your rent? Did he advocate for you?
“Reversed course”? I don’t think there’s any mystery why the group is supporting Chan. This piece is written as if Track AIPAC is somehow sneaky or hypocritical. They make endorsements, and Chan is running against Wiener, so they pick the candidate who is clearly more allied with the group’s mission. Further, despite what you write, I don’t remember this group ever stated that Chan sought and knowingly received AIPAC money; it was clearly reported that the money was strategically hidden by Israel in a maze of front groups with cute names, and rushed in to buy pro-Chan ads to defeat Chakrabarti. It is true what Chakrabarti says – he is more dangerous to israel’s image and their success in congress since he is historically and unabashedly anti-war and pro-Palestinian, and that’s why Track Aipac supported him. Chan, at least until fairly recently (and reported in Mission Local), was in favor of defensive weapons to Israel. So Track Aipac was doing its job by identifying the funds. And as for Wiener, no matter whether after almost 3 years he finally calls it “genocide”, Wiener is pro-Israel. We know what that means. Why wouldn’t they support Chan over Wiener — What more do you need Track Aipac to say?
Anti-war and pro-Palestinian means you support a different war.
But is that not a tacit admission that pro-Israel military support includes the objective of killing and displacing civilians by the hundreds of thousands, a war crime as Mandami noted, as international law denotes, and as US foreign policy under the criminal Donald Trump continues to support tacitly.
@SD – This is exactly right. I’ve been in the peace movement for decades and have watched it erode from peace-making to taking sides. This has been a long-term project and the group A.N.S.W.E.R. undid nationwide peace mobilizations and movements 20 years ago, replacing it with the Palestinian omnicause.
The peace movement in the U.S. has been smothered when we need it most (i.e. when the U.S. wages wars).
The PSL is a splinter from A.N.S.W.E.R. and have pursued an entryist strategy with the DSA, and in San Francisco they have been instrumental in the ahistorical revisionism and framing of the issues with inflammatory rhetoric. Neither Chan nor Wiener take AIPAC money, but Wiener did not immediately and knee-jerkingly adopt this faction’s use of the word “genocide.”