Instead, he wrote an opinion piece. He got to use far more words to explain his views, but he didn’t face the questions a reporter (me here) would ask.
Some things stick out. First, he says “AIPAC wasn’t the only special interest group spending 7 figures” in the races
Well, that leaves out an important fact: the AIPAC groups spent 8 figures. The total was $22 million.
Two more groups spent 7 figures. One was AI-tied Think Big at $2.5 million. The other was crypto-tied Fairshake at $3.3 million.
Even combined, the totals aren’t close.
He also said “crypto and artificial intelligence industries were all in. But only AIPAC became the cause célèbre.”
It’s certainly true AIPAC got by far the most attention. But it’s not true that crypto & AI didn’t get big attention. And again, spending wasn’t equivalent.
And he left out a very big part of why AIPAC got attention: They hid their money.
Sacks could’ve defended his contributions before Election Day, when they were anonymous.
There was a clear effort to hide where money was coming from by using shell PACs & avoiding Q’s.
Other groups also sent mailers focused on top issues that the groups didn’t care about themselves (like the crypto PAC).
But they didn’t use shell PACs and dodge like the AIPAC super PACs. It wasn’t a double standard — it was a different response to a different action.
There’s no doubt antisemitism is on the rise. It’s a hugely important issue. And Sacks makes some interesting points — you should read the piece in its entirety.
But it doesn’t engage with a question I hear often: Does such big spending — from anyone — belong in politics.
Sacks has spent huge amounts on less controversial groups as a top contributor to Democrats. He lists some out below.
He argues contributions to AIPAC are treated differently & unfairly as some Democrats “chase Jews & their allies out of our big tent coalition.”
There’s good debate to be had about that point and his view that Israel views are unfairly becoming a litmus test for Democrats.
But he’s not engaging with the common criticism of money — especially carefully hidden money — playing an oversized role in American politics.
- Braceville Brad - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 8:51 am:
No one intentionally hides something they are proud of….period. If AIPAC and their donors were so proud of the cause they were championing they would not be hiding behind fake PACs and lies.
- The Dude Abides - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 8:53 am:
Not shocked in the least in this application of the true Golden Rule - those who have the gold, make the rules.
- Sox Fan - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 9:00 am:
People who believe they deserve to hoard massive amounts of wealth in the face of others living in extreme poverty also believe they deserve to buy their preferred outcome in elections. Their greed must be confronted head on. H/T to Jake for calling out the Trib giving Sacks a stage to avoid their own journalist’s questions.
- End citizens united - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 9:22 am:
Voters are exhausted by the amount of money in politics and are hungry for change. How will the Democratic Party reckon with that in the next election? How will future presidential candidate and billionaire JB Pritzker reckon with that?
- Jack in Chatham - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 9:22 am:
AIPAC is a tool of the Military Industrial Complex.
- ChicagoBars - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 9:33 am:
I would LOVE a policy requiring a Tribune reporter to interview anyone who got the Trib editorial board to run an op-ed the interviewee wrote and do a story. That would be super fun.
“Alderperson, this op-ed you “wrote” in no way sounds like you in your emails that we FOIA or in your floor remarks. Did you write it yourself?”
- Rory - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 9:34 am:
Jake’s a really solid reporter and was one of a handful of folks doing excellent reporting on the big money this primary cycle. Ultimately if you think your issues are winners with the voters, you should lead with them. Not funnel $$$s to PACs with weird names that talk about “kitchen table” issues when your desired policy outcome is regarding Israel or crypto or anything else. Jake’s right to be peeved at his editorial team’s choice to let someone pen an op-ed unburdened by follow-up questions while declining to comment for a story on any other page of the paper.
- Techie - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 9:44 am:
The big picture is that voters are tired of money in politics, and it clearly has a corrupting influence in politics.
There should be no money in elections from groups like AIPAC for the same reason there should be no money in elections from corporations or foreign nationals. None of them have the same interests as US citizens. When your interests are something other than those of citizens, you should not be involved in US elections.
- DarkestBeforeDawn - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 10:02 am:
Our democracy died with Citizens United. If the issues these PACs threw millions of dollars toward were popular, they wouldn’t need to throw millions of dollars at them.