The Incumbent’s and My Record on Gaza and Israel
The Importance of Following the Money: She Took It, I Don’t
If you submit symbolic House resolutions and give speeches about Gaza, but still support the AIPAC-flooded establishment and take Pro-Israel endorsements yourself - are you actually an ally to Palestinians, or just postering?
Screenshot of email confirmation. Name omitted
On April 2nd, 2024, I heard the news that 7 people who worked for World Central Kitchen (WCK), a nonprofit humanitarian organization which brings food aid to Gaza and other war-torn areas and disaster zones, had died. After the team unloaded more than 100 tons of humanitarian food aid at the Deir al-Balah warehouse, they were struck by an IDF. So I sent flowers to their D.C. address with a card. This is an organization I had donated to before, and one of my friends used to work there.
I wasn’t ever able to donate a lot to WCK, but I gave what I could. I have heard people paint me as some rich tech person, but that’s not true. My wages are a little over the national average [1] and under the Bay Area average, even though I work well over 40 hours a week and live here in East Bay, which has a notoriously high cost of living [2]. The home I live in is possible because I manage the property part-time in exchange to stay here for free. At my own charity, I get paid the least, even though I am the founding Executive Director. You can see this in our IRS filings. At my org, we build civic tools and provide education on socio-political issues.
But why does that matter? The point is, I could use money. But there are some places I would never take money from - and that includes any Pro-Israel PACs. The same can not be said about the incumbent. To be clear, I am not writing this article to attack her. I am writing this article because, as I just said, providing ‘education on socio-political issues’ is my full-time job. And this is an issue that a lot of people care deeply about, yet it doesn’t seem like many local journalists have an interest in covering it. So I am happy to organize this information for you.
So, to put it bluntly, the incumbent has taken Pro-Israel PAC money according to her campaign’s FEC filings which can be plainly seen on OpenSecrets. Later, she refunded the PAC money. I’m told this was after pushback from voters. I was told this directly by the people who pressured her on this. However, she is still, presently, endorsed by a Zionist Pro-Israel PAC, which acts as a “pass-through” PAC to allow individuals to find her and donate via their website. The donation button is right on the endorsement page. The PAC is JStreet, which some consider “dovish” compared to AIPAC, but it is a fully self-described Zionist, Pro-Israel organization. Their words, not mine.
< Screenshot from OpenSecrets
Select the “ideological” tab to see a drop-down of ideological PACs. You can see $27k in Pro-Israel money, and $-1k under Pro-Israel PAC (I’m guessing her team over-refunded the donations).
To get endorsed by Jstreet, they stated on their now deleted “Myths & Facts” page (which you can look up a backup copy from March 2026 in the Internet Archive to see) that they interview candidates in order to determine endorsements. They wrote that they only interview candidates “about their views on issues related to American policy toward Israel and the Middle East. The PAC does not interview candidates about any other issue.” JStreet is on TrackAIPAC’s own list of Pro-Israel PACs. What makes this confusing is that TrackAIPAC still lists the incumbent as endorsed by them after initially tweeting about her in 2025, but I am guessing they just haven’t updated their records.
Again, many folks think this organization is “dovish,” and because they likewise advocate for democracy and peace, those people argue that the Jstreet endorsement and this money shouldn’t be a problem. However, I think it is a problem. I think it’s a slap in the face to Palestinians and a betrayal of American citizens. I think any congressperson with integrity should refuse all money from any PAC that is “Pro-another-country,” let alone Israel which is committing a genocide.
Although the Congresswoman has been vocal about Gaza and Palestine online and off, as it is said - talk is cheap, and money isn’t. She gave back some of the money (her net is still $26k according to OpenSecrets; though I haven’t personally combed through her FEC filings since she refunded some of the money). But why take it in the first place? Why wait for voter backlash to give it back? Why go through an endorsement process with a Pro-Israel PAC at all? Some folks may say it was a mistake or it was done without her knowledge. I’ve asked those people for evidence, and they do not have any.
People may also argue: well, what about her votes and co-sponsorships? She has voted against the wrong bills and co-sponsored the right ones, right? Her cosponsorships, floor votes on defense spending, and public rhetoric place her among the most vocal critics of U.S. military support for Israel's Gaza campaign in the House, some would say. That may be true, but again - talk is cheap. ‘Introducing’ a bill entails dropping it into a literal box and then getting to do a press release. Advocacy is work, absolutely. Votes cost time. But these are also easy actions that quickly score points and do not change the game.
For example, H. RES 876 was a house resolution bill that she co-sponsored, recognizing the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, calling for an end to arms transfers and investigations. Sounds good. Unfortunately, this bill was designed to impress voters, not help Palestinians. This bill is non-binding, not enforceable, and is essentially a gesture. There is no teeth. It doesn’t contain the information needed to direct actual investigations and ensure anything actually happens even if it was passed. It’s a vague gesture that looks good to voters, but is less sincere and more symbolic. But these are lives we are talking about - an entire generation. We should never settle for vague, symbolic gestures. We need laws on the books which incite true action. Some laws which the incumbent co-sponsored could have accomplished something real, and again, advocacy is work, but It’s important to take in the full picture to assess if actions are designed for scoring political points rather than changing “the game,” and voters should be aware of this.
Because people are starting to wake up to the fact that politics is a game, and the parties aren’t necessarily on our team. If you have never been awakened to the concept of the “rotating villain,” then its worth looking up. Massie (who was unseated after the Pro-Israel lobby reportedly spent at least 15.8 million against him in his race) brought up the “rotating villain” concept at his 1hr floor speech today. It’s essentially a coordination mechanism among established parties to allow members in competitive or ideological districts to vote against the party as long as the math still shakes out in the parties’ interest. But every once in a while, someone has to be the “villain” and ensure something passes or fails. Ever wonder why nothing substantial seems to get done and ‘the people’ always seem to lose? That’s why. The parties don’t represent us, they exist to perpetuate themselves as a vehicle for special interests and donor’s ideologies. And to be clear - I do like to think that the incumbent actually cares about Gazans, but ultimately, I do not think she will oppose the establishment that gave her this position and continues to award her with committee assignments.
I don’t think these committee roles are rewards for being an independent firebrand progressive, they are rewards for being an establishment team player. I hate to break it to you, but the incumbent is establishment. For goodness sake, she’s Kamala Harris’ mentee and was touring with her this Spring. By her own admission, she’s known Kamala since the 90s. When Lateefah talks about the democrats, she doesn’t say “the democrats,” she says “we.”
Her speech is genuinely compelling, and her sympathetic backstory makes her easy to root for. In my view, that’s in part what’s makes her a valuable team player. That’s why she brings up her past a lot. But she has also been asked twice if she would support Hakeem Jeffries as the speaker of the House (once at her Berkeley town hall this year and secondly at her Emeryville one during the QnA session), but she declined to answer it straight. She redirected and said “he has the votes” so he will inevitably be speaker. But this is unacceptable. Hakeem Jeffries might as well be on TrackAIPAC’s most wanted list. In July, Jeffries opposed Rep. Thomas Massie's amendment to eliminate $3.3 billion in annual military aid to Israel, calling it overly broad. That came weeks after his fundraising committee was reported to have received the largest ‘individual’ earmarked donation in the history of AIPAC's PAC (given directly to a candidate’s PAC rather than spent on behalf of a candidate).
Lateefah yelled at me at the Emeryville town hall alluding that I “talk crazy,” (which I have on video), but what I am saying is not crazy. This is partisan politics and I have little doubt this kind of coordination happens. The incumbent is allowed to vote with her conscience in this extreme-left district and cost the Dems a vote now and then, but in exchange, she doesn’t make trouble. I can understand that if folks have never contemplated this before, they may be resistant to to the idea. We all encounter information at different times and that’s ok - but you can wake up too late, and it’s already almost midnight for democracy. So please open your eyes soon.
And If you think I’m not seeing something, tell me in turn.
Likewise, this may be the moment at which some people may call me anti-semitic, because I would refuse any Pro-Israel PAC money, openly talk about the undue influence of Israel in our politics, call what’s happening in Gaza a genocide, agree that Netanyahu is a war criminal, and in my bill, The MAD Act, I both aggressively exempt Israel from investigative protections in Title VII and argue that AIPAC should register under FARA in Title IV. But no, I am not anti-semitic. Anyone who knows me knows that. I even have a small, documented history of supporting Jewish causes: specifically, the preservation of endangered Jewish dialects, which I was quoted in JWeekly about in 2021. Being critical of Israel is not anti-semetic. This isn’t a Jewish ideological PAC. It is a Pro-Israel ideological PAC.
And in case you’re upset at me while reading this, please remember: it should be ok to criticize both our own government and any foreign government. I repeat: it is ok to criticize both our own government and any foreign government. That doesn’t mean I have any ill-feelings towards Israeli people, and especially not towards Jewish people. I do, however, feel great disappointment when anyone in elected office accepts money that is “pro” another nation. And I am disgusted by any member of Congress who takes money from Israel-aligned organizations at this time.
Despite the incumbent raising so much more money than I have, I would rather lose this election than take blood money. If Israel wanted to improve its image and relationship to the United States in earnest, it should invest this money in good causes, in charity, in food for Gaza - not in trying to control seats in Congress. I don’t know if it’s pernicious paranoia on the part of Israel out of self-defense or what, but I do know that Palestine should be free.
So what can be done? Something I have been recently looking into is how the Leahy Laws also don’t seem to have any teeth. If elected, I would push for an amendment to ensure that future genocidal actions have consequences. People may claim that I will face issues of not having enough consensus, but that’s why my Just 12 Strategy exists (read on the front page of my website). Actions can be forced even if you can only build a small, insurgent coalition. These Leahy Law amendments may face constitutional challenge, but we can’t let the executive branch police itself and I am happy to argue, research, and legislate a way to ensure that determinations of violations of Leahy Laws result in the following:
Mandatory findings with deadlines: We could require a public determination within a set time after credible reports, so officials can't avoid the law by never deciding on how to interpret the reports and Judicial review to create a right for affected parties or Congress to sue.
Personal accountability for officials: Impose civil or criminal penalties for knowingly approving prohibited assistance.
Independent oversight: Require inspector general audits of vetting decisions, plus whistleblower protections for officials who flag violations.
Use funding as leverage: Withhold part of the State or Defense budgets until reporting requirements are met.
If you have more ideas on what we can do in the future, know that I will be looking into it - and I’m open to all suggestions.
Yours in service,
Jamie