Opinion | What AIPAC weighs when it supports a candidate (2024)

Ms. Attiah wrote, “A majority of the primary challengers funded by AIPAC are opposed by candidates of color (Cori Bush of Missouri, who also called for a cease-fire, is next on AIPAC’s list later this summer).”

However, the truth is that we support many candidates of color, among them Wesley Bell, Ms. Bush’s opponent. In fact, we support not only nearly half of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus but also almost half of the Hispanic Caucus and Progressive Caucus memberships as well.

These omissions undermine both Ms. Attiah’s description of us as a “conservative” organization and her implication that we oppose “candidates of color” because of their race.

Our only criterion for supporting or opposing candidates is their position on the U.S.-Israel relationship. And a cursory examination of Mr. Bowman’s record would reveal that he is part of what can be described as an extremist, anti-Israel fringe in Congress.

It does a disservice not just to AIPAC, but to your readers, for The Post to publish such a significant mischaracterization of our mission and work.

Marshall Wittmann, Washington

The writer is AIPAC’s spokesperson.

In making her claims that AIPAC is telling Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) to “shut up or else,” Karen Attiah neglects to mention an important reason the group embraced Mr. Bowman’s primary opponent, George Latimer.

In November, Mr. Bowman called the widely documented Hamas rapes of Israelis during the Oct. 7 attack “a lie,” claiming Israel uses stories of sexual atrocities committed by Hamas for “propaganda.” It took him more than four months to withdraw those assertions.

Perhaps what is happening is a bit less nefarious than Ms. Attiah would have us believe: A group devoted to lobbying for a robust relationship between Israel and the United States has decided to back a Democratic candidate who doesn’t appear to instinctively weigh someone’s religion, ethnicity or nationality when deciding whether to believe that they were a victim of sexual violence.

Dena Goodman, Tel Aviv

Unlike very few people in America, I do not have the means to reach Justice Clarence Thomas with my offer, and I was hoping perhaps The Post could help?

In recently watching the news, it has occurred to me that Justice Thomas has an affection for all-inclusive vacations. Also, that if I have some important things I might want to seek his perspective on, offering him a trip is the way to get his attention and perhaps some alone time.

So, here’s my proposal:

I would like to extend an all-inclusive vacation to you and your wife, to be shared with myself and my wife. We would have you meet us at the Sacramento airport to begin a nice drive through the Napa region as we head to Mendocino to stay at the historic Mendocino Hotel & Garden Suites. You will likely be hungry by then, and to avoid the hangries, we will make sure to dine at the local bar that serves the best fried food you will ever have a chance to eat. It also has plenty of local beers on tap.

From there, we will drive down the Pacific Coast Highway, and though I know it is a long drive, remember this is an all-expenses-paid vacation, so I have the gas and all hotel costs covered. We have a Motel 6 in Santa Cruz booked for one night and another in Los Angeles near Disneyland. I cannot wait to get a photo of you and me going down Thunder Mountain together. Our wives should sit together for that picture. I think this will really cement our bond and be great for the mantelat Christmas. You will see you are just like me, and so perhaps you might be interested in my opinions about a woman’s right to choose, and maybe also my concern that people are trying to take our democracy from us. Do not worry: We will save that for the end. No discussing business on vacation, right?

Consider how much fun you are in for! I am hoping you will also be thinking about doing it again next year. My first thought was that we might enjoy a cross-country trip with you and the wife in my 26-foot tow-behind trailer. I know this sounds awesome, so think about your 2025 calendar while you are responding with potential dates for this year.

I would appreciate it if The Post could find some means to extend this invitation for me. Regular Americans like me need a chance to speak to Justice Thomas, just like those other folks with money.

Jeremy Moulton, Lodi, Calif.

My gosh, it’s tough being a Supreme Court justice and makingas little as $298,500. The necessity to enjoy luxurious trips and perks, as well as generate more income through book deals, is a no-brainer. Or is it?

I am finding it increasingly difficult to trust the probity of Supreme Court justices. Of course, it is right and required for them to disclose the gifts they receive. I am skeptical of the original intent of both givers and recipients. I strongly believe that justices supposedly invested with impeccable judgment would refrain from accepting exotic trips, concert tickets, artwork and book deals.

If perception is reality — and it is — unbecoming appearances matter. Self-aggrandizement engenders distrust in institutions formerly considered sacrosanct. We citizens could, and do, question whether the independent judgment the justices purport to offer us is reality.

Howard Freedlander, Annapolis, Md.

I worked as an attorney for the federal government, specifically the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), for almost 20 years. Clarence Thomas was chairman of the commission for a substantial part of my tenure there.

My time was almost evenly split between D.C. and Miami. In that role, I could accept next to nothing in the form of gifts from anyone or any organization that I might have to deal with as an EEOC official. This included transportation costs to speak at seminars they were conducting.

The actions of the justices of the Supreme Court in accepting these “gifts” are shocking. There is no way these should be accepted, and I am including the trips to “teach” in foreign countries and visit luxurious resorts in that judgment. This conduct is disgraceful, and each justice should be required to disclose all the perks that they have received and be forcibly recused from any cases in which their benefactors have an interest.

Stanley Kiszkiel, Davie, Fla.

The Post’s June 6 news article “House members expensed over $5M under new program” brought to light some important new facts. However, the story glossed over the underlying problem: the annual pay cut that Congress continues to implement on itself.

According to the Congressional Research Service, because of inflation, the pay for individual members of Congress has effectively been cut by 31 percent since 2009, when members of Congress voted to deny themselves a cost-of-living adjustment in keeping with the lack of an adjustment for Social Security recipients. The reason organizations adjust employee pay for inflation is precisely to ensure that their staffers don’t lose buying power. Congress generally has kept the value of its own staffers’ pay level during this time with cost-of-living adjustments, but has resisted adjusting their own pay lest they be accused of giving themselves a “pay raise” by demagogues and charlatans.

Congress will find it increasingly hard to maintain its image of a “representative body” if only the wealthy can afford to serve in Congress. While the $174,000 annual congressional salary is significantly higher than most American families make, it is much less than these successful public servants can pull down in the private sector. Plus, members of Congress must maintain residences both at home and in the metro D.C. area, adding to the financial burdens they face.

Every year that Congress waits to reinstate the COLA for members will mean an additional pay cut for America’s legislature. We’re talking less than pennies from a federal budget perspective — yet diminishing this tiny investment further will have a profound effect on our nation’s leaders who make trillion-dollar decisions for our democracy.

Bradford Fitch, Washington

The writer is president and chief executive of the Congressional Management Foundation.

But one important point was omitted: the funding for support to such ambassadorial positions. Yes, the State Department provides so-called representational funds for some expenses. Yet none but the wealthy can afford to be ambassadors to posts such as Britain, France and Germany, where the representational expenses they are expected to incur, such as for American July Fourth celebrations, can be very high. A friend was ambassador to a country of mid-level diplomatic importance to the United States, and he said he spent more than $4,000 for such celebrations, a figure that was deductible, of course, from his income tax as a business expense, but nevertheless an up-front sacrifice.

Such expenses can be monitored so they are not exploited, but the need is apparent and should be recognized.

David I. Steinberg, Bethesda