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 posturing?
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.
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. It doesn’t matter if these PACs are pro-two-state solution or not. Accepting special interest money advocating for specific foreign policy is a conflict of interest. The incumbent, however, has taken Pro-Israel PAC money. This is nuanced, and to be clear, I am not writing this article to attack her character personally. I am writing this article because this is an issue that a lot of people care deeply about, yet it doesn’t get unpacked fully, so let’s do this now.
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. Local activists tell me the refund came after they pressured her campaign. 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 and advocates for things like a two-state solution, but it is a fully self-described Zionist, Pro-Israel organization. Their words, not mine. They are a Pro-Israel PAC - that’s a fact. That being said, Simon is also endorsed by Elect Democratic Women, whose affiliated PAC has taken millions from AIPAC's super PAC. This article is about unpacking the network of influence and its impact, even if the direct funds come from a Pro-Israel organization that is “dovish” compared to AIPAC.
< Screenshot from OpenSecrets
Select the “ideological” tab to see a drop-down of ideological PACs. OpenSecrets lists about $27k under “Pro-Israel,” a category that counts individual donors it classifies as pro-Israel. It lists about -$1k under “Pro-Israel PAC,” meaning the PAC contributions were refunded.
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. Taking money from any PAC that promotes specific policies for foreign countries is.
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.
And 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. 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.”
She’s a genuinely compelling speaker, and her story is a powerful one - that’s why she repeats it often. But compelling advocacy isn’t the same as independence from party leadership, and her record points towards party allegiances. She has 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). In the past, the Congresswoman proudly posted on her own website that Jeffries “pulled her aside and told her the party had bigger plans for her.” To me that’s not good news.
From what I can see, 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. She won’t speak out against Jeffries or the party line. That seems to be the case currently. And I think this is more of what we can expect: supporting the establishment which is resoundingly led by AIPAC-funded members.
So, this may be the moment at which some people may call me antisemitic, because I would refuse any Pro-Israel PAC money, openly talk about the undue influence of the state 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 the state of Israel from investigative protections in Title VII and argue that AIPAC should register under FARA in Title IV. But no, I am not antisemitic. I harbor nothing but affection for people and their right to their faiths, and this includes the Jewish faith, Jewish people, and Israeli people - who deserve freedom, safety, and their own political voices. Preserving Jewish voices is actually something I have marginally contributed to in the past via the preservation of endangered Jewish dialects, which I was quoted in JWeekly about in 2021. Being critical of the state of Israel and Pro-Israel PACs is not antisemitic nor should it be conflated with how anyone feels towards Jewish people. JStreetPAC isn’t a stand-in for Jewish Americans. It’s a political committee organized around U.S. policy toward Israel. And I believe members of Congress shouldn’t take money from PACs organized around any foreign country, whichever country it is. I see it as a conflict of interest.
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. We should all 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 Pro-Israel PACs - because again, statements from high-ranking Israeli officials make it clear that there is exterminist intent for Gaza. The numbers of deaths and the percentage of the population may be lower than previous genocides like in Rwanda and the Holocaust, but genocide can be defined by intent and acts, not by a death toll. And yes, we have seen death in Israel too, and that is also a tragedy and intolerable. But unlike genocides of the past, we the public can see it unfold in close to real time, so we can recognize disproportionate violence, intentions, and then act before the toll grows instead of acknowledging it in hindsight. The Overton window about what constitutes genocide has and should shift. And we should all be grateful to live in a global culture in which such loss of human life is considered absolutely intolerable.
Despite the incumbent raising so much more money than I have, I would rather lose this election than take Pro-Israel PAC money. Every American is welcome to take part in our politics, whatever their views on Israel, but my rule is about what I can’t accept: I will never take money from PACs organized around any foreign country’s agenda. Especially when that country is committing genocidal human rights abuses in an aggressive campaign and their debt-to-GDP ratio suggests they can afford to maintain their own Iron Dome and defenses at this time.
It is difficult to get accurate information during war and conflict, especially when journalists themselves have been killed and both sides of it have incentives to juke the stats. But if there is one thing that I do know, it is that Palestine should be free and the killing, famine, destruction, and forced relocations must end. I am grateful to the chorus of Jewish voices who are calling for the same.
Yours in service,
Jamie
A note to those who have written to me: No, I do not support Hamas. I believe that Hamas is a terrorist and violent extremist group and such a group has no place in governing Gaza or Palestine - nor anywhere. Nor should they be supported with weapons, money, or any support whatsoever. Violence has no place in a just society. Those who perpetuate violence and violent ideology need to be held to account.