AIPAC just dropped nearly $2 million in outside spending to attack New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman in his Democratic primary against George Latimer.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s super PAC has launched its first ads attacking Rep. Jamaal Bowman in the Democratic primary in New York’s 16th Congressional District. The ads claim that Bowman “has his own agenda” and refuses to work with President Joe Biden.

United Democracy Project, the AIPAC super PAC, bought its first set of ads this week for $1.9 million, disclosing that it planned to spend the money in a week, to oppose Bowman in the race against Westchester County executive George Latimer. The primary election takes place June 25.

Latimer, who was recruited to run by AIPAC and has received huge contributions directly from the group, has had nearly a million dollars of support from outside groups before AIPAC weighed in. Bowman also has outside support, but it’s a fraction of AIPAC’s spending so far for Latimer. Known as “independent expenditures,” outside groups can weigh in on elections but not in coordination with campaigns.

With the new AIPAC money to attack Bowman, outside groups in the race are spending nearly 10 times more in Latimer’s favor — with roughly $3 million total for Latimer and against Bowman, and Bowman supporters spending only about $285,000.

  • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
    1·
    6 months ago

    While I think that the supreme Court is slanted shite, isn’t every ruling they make just a “that’s not what we think the law currently says” meaning we should instead be blaming Congress for not writing an updated law that clarifies what we want?

    • ZombiFrancis
      2·
      6 months ago

      If there is a conflict with an interpretation of law the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause ranks federal case law (SCOTUS rulings) over federal statutes (Congressional law). The rulings essentially have to be overturned by an interpretation derived from the Constitution.

      SpeechNow and CitizensUnited were argued and ruled under the 1st Amendment so any Congressional law would either instantly be ruled unconstitutional if challenged (because supremacy clause); so the law would have to somehow not run afoul of the (lazy and bad) interpretations established by the SCOTUS majority at that time. (If you read the decisions: the reasoning between the two consist of complimentary and more importantly circular arguments.)

      Which means the only viable path is: a different SCOTUS could hear a new case to challenge them, ala Dobbs overturning Roe. But this SCOTUS is way worse and appointed for life and won’t change for 30+ years unless reformed.