Thread! (Updated)
Wednesday, Mar 25, 2026 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Background is here if you need it. The Tribune editorial board allowed a person who would not answer a Tribune reporter’s legitimate questions an opportunity to write his own op-ed, and that’s not sitting well with said Tribune reporter…
Michael Sacks wrote this @chicagotribune op-ed to defend his support of AIPAC super PACs in Chicago Congressional primaries.
I asked Sacks, a billionaire & Democratic megadonor, for comment before I reported his contributions Monday. Got no reply. (1/9)
www.chicagotribune.com/2026/03/24/o…
[image or embed]
— Jake Sheridan (@jake-sheridan.bsky.social) March 24, 2026 at 5:39 PM
* More from the thread…
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.
Discuss.
…Adding… Jake’s claim that the crypto-backed Fairshake spent just $3.3 million is rightly challenged by a commenter…
WBEZ and several other outlets say Fairshake spent $10 million in the US Senate primary and then another $2.5 million in the 7th.
Click here.
- Candy Dogood - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 8:45 am:
===But only AIPAC became the cause célèbre.”===
I’ve found it hard to keep up on international relations these days. Did any AI companies or Crypto companies recently bomb a hospital?
- 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.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 9:04 am:
===But it doesn’t engage with a question I hear often===
I’m always skeptical when someone says “everyone is saying.” No one’s personal experience is reflective of public opinion. You need a real poll or survey for that.
It is kind of obvious why Sacks does not want to sit for a deposition about his secret money. The editorial side of a newspaper can post whatever letters they want.
- Big Dipper - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 9:14 am:
The Trib ed board has been a joke for years but now they are actively undermining real journalists who work for the same company. We can expect others to dodge questions knowing they can use the Ed Board to help them confuse and obfuscate the issues.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 9:14 am:
The other aspect that needs to be highlighted is that AIPAC promotes an unconditional support for Israel (a nation-state) which AIPAC and Israel conflate with support for Jewish people (an ethnic group associated with a religion) even though the two are not the same. Sacks accepts the conflation while many Democrats, including Gov Pritzker, for example, do not.
- 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.
- DarkestBeforeDawn - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 9:28 am:
==If AIPAC and their donors were so proud of the cause they were championing they would not be hiding behind fake PACs and lies.==
Bingo. The brand is toxic because their cause is unpopular. A growing majority of voters wants to reduce American dollars going toward Israel shredding rule of law and acting with impunity in their ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
Further, it’s no wonder that Sacks hides his defense of AIPAC dollars behind the idea that Dems are trying to “chase Jews out of the Democratic party.” I wish more made the distinction between Judaism and Zionism. Conflating a thousand-year-old religion with a 78-year-old ethnostate is what got us into this mess of hollering antisemitism anytime there is a demonstration for Palestinian dignity.
- 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.
- Phineas - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 9:53 am:
I have been generally pretty aligned w Sacks and his political efforts and was actually shocked to find out he was a big source of this cycle’s AIPAC spending. Isn’t hiding money being used to combat antisemitism counterproductive? It feeds the tropes.
- 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.
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 10:41 am:
Get all the money out of politics.
They can debate and be interviewed on public TV……..
Oh, wait - they’re getting rid of that, too.
I miss the old days:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP7WaUPACuY
- Illiana - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 11:11 am:
Overall a fair complaint from Jak, but I am a little confused about where he is getting his totals for how much the AI and crypto PACs spent. WBEZ and several other outlets say Fairshake spent $10 million in the US Senate primary and then another $2.5 million in the 7th.
- here we go again - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 11:23 am:
It speaks volumes about the level of antisemitism in today’s Dem party that even a Jewish Democrat governor feels the need to apologize for and distance himself from a PAC devoted to protecting the interests of Israel, a tiny country, one of America’s closest allies, and the only true democracy in the Middle East. A country surrounded by countries who, at best, wouldn’t mind if it just went away.
And yes, there is also a disturbing rise in antisemitism on the Right with wackjobs like Candace Owens having millions of loyal followers on social media who lap up her daily doses of “Zionist” hate and ancient antisemitic tropes.
But AIPAC is the big problem? It’s a disturbing trend.
- Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 11:32 am:
- It speaks volumes about the level of antisemitism in today’s Dem party that even a Jewish Democrat governor feels the need to apologize for and distance himself from a PAC devoted to protecting the interests of Israel -
It speaks volumes about yourself that you consider ethnic cleansing “protecting the interests of Israel”.
Also AIPAC is not a PAC.
- Jocko - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 11:37 am:
==Our democracy died with Citizens United.==
This all day. UK general election campaign spending hit a record high at 125 million.
Meanwhile, the US dropped $16 BILLION (from both parties) on the November election.
- Candy Dogood - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 11:50 am:
===But AIPAC is the big problem? It’s a disturbing trend.===
The rhetoric framed in your post has become less and less effective and the intended audience continues to shrink. AIPAC decided to support extreme right wing regimes in Israel by aligning themselves with a right wing regime in the United States.
Labeling folks that don’t support right wing regimes as antisemites isn’t a very effective strategy, but do carry on.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 11:53 am:
==It speaks volumes about the level of antisemitism==
Please refer to my previous comment. A refusal to support Israel (a nation state) unconditionally is not “antisemitism” even though Israel and AIPAC constantly conflate the two.
==the only true democracy in the Middle East==
The refusal to allow Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to either have an independent state or become citizens and voters in Israel call its characterization as a “true democracy” into question.
The bottom line for me is that holding Israel to account as a nation-state is just that. It is not the same as being biased against an ethnic/religious group of people. (Certainly, some folks who are anti-Israel are also antisemitic, but one should be able to criticize Israel, a nation they may well support, for actions it takes without being accused of being antisemitic.)
- Niles Township - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 12:18 pm:
-I wish more made the distinction between Judaism and Zionism. Conflating a thousand-year-old religion with a 78-year-old ethnostate is what got us into this mess of hollering antisemitism anytime there is a demonstration for Palestinian dignity.-
I’m sorry but I believe in facts. You may wish something but try grounding it in facts. Judsism and its presence in that ancestral land (Zionism) are connected. Judaism is 3200+ years old predating both Christianity and Islam as does the Jewish presence in what would be called Israel today. The word “Zion” occurs more than 150 times in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). It occurs zero times in the Qu’ran. The Jewish people are deeply rooted in that land for thousands of years. Daily Jewish prayer talks about the land of Israel and Jerusalem. In more modern times, certain Arabic people have also become rooted to portions of that land. When you deny facts … it’s pushing an agenda. This is a complex problem that won’t be solved on a blog, but I won’t let hate filled facts go without answer.
On the Sacks issue, I’m for less money in politics, but so long as it’s legal (yes I’d overturn Citizens United), I don’t begrudge those who use it.
- Tom - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 12:22 pm:
Sack’s was smart not to answer Jake’s inquiry. From his response alone, Jake had an agenda that would benefit no one but the narrative he wanted to tell.
- Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 12:29 pm:
- The Jewish people are deeply rooted in that land for thousands of years. -
And Palestinian people aren’t? Not to mention why would that give any group of people the right to ethnically cleanse the other people living there?
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 12:32 pm:
Reporting also shows Sacks gave $1.2 million to AIPAC aligned groups. However, AIPAC spent $22 million in elections across Illinois. Michael Sacks ain’t AIPAC. He is barely 1/22 of AIPAC in Illinois. Sacks also backed Anthony Driver in the 7th, against AIPAC-aligned Conyears-Ervin and others.
Local context matters. There are lots of people who want to make Sacks the boogeyman in Chicago politics.
- Rahm's Parking Meter - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 12:54 pm:
My faith is tied to Israel, so are Muslims and Christians.
Big money questions post Citizens United are fair game no doubt.
But there is an unfair litmus test encouraged against Jews in the Democratic Party that is based on our support for Israel to exist, but then some scream AIPAC or Genocide at us.
You want to push Jews out of the Democratic Party, keep it up Progressives.
Can we have legitimate disagreements and criticisms of Netanyahu, sure, I’ve had them since he took power when I was in Middle School.
But to hold American Jews accountable for that is unfair and frankly just as wrong.
If you make the argument about Fairshake or AIPAC influence, what about other PACs like Unions or Planned Parenthood (and in full disclosure, I donate to Planned Parenthood and other Jewish charities).
The point is, what we saw in 9, and other areas felt like an “othering” of Jews in the party because of AIPAC whether they agreed or not, and on a national scale, it WILL cost the Democratic Party a close race if it keeps up.
- DarkestBeforeDawn - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 12:54 pm:
==hate filled facts==
So if an archaeologist were to discover a 4,000 year old text declaring Niles the ancestral homeland of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and thus its followers waged genocide and ethnic cleansing against anyone who did not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they would be justified?
Why even bring up the Quran? Palestine makes no attempts to be an ethnostate or religiously exclusive. There are Christian Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians, at one point, Jewish Palestinians.
The issue (throughout history, rooted in fact) is when religion is used as a weapon to oppress others and supersede basic human rights.
- JB13 - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 1:03 pm:
– demonstration for Palestinian dignity –
Yeah, “globalize the intifada” is all about peace and love and dignity. That’s why the people at these demonstrations love to wave around the Hamas flag. Or are you also going to try to say that Hamas is “misunderstood?”
Fact: 21% of all Israeli citizens are Muslim or otherwise non-Jewish. Seems far more democratic than any of the Muslim countries around them.
Just because they are in the Middle East, doesn’t mean Israeli Jews must surrender control of their country to Muslims to make you feel better.
A Jewish state has a right to exist.
- Niles Township - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 1:04 pm:
- And Palestinian people aren’t? -
Apparently you couldn’t bring yourself to finish reading my comment. I noted that some Arabic peoples are rooted there as well. By the way, not just Palestinians but Bedouin and Israel Arabs (both Muslims and Christians, and who serve in Israel’s parliament, Supreme Court, in professional roles etc.) too. As I also noted, you won’t solve this issue on a blog, but I’m tired of hate filled agenda based facts not being answered.
- Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 1:04 pm:
- what about other PACs like Unions or Planned Parenthood -
Do those unions or Planned Parenthood support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians? Because that’s what AIPAC supports.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 1:09 pm:
==A Jewish state has a right to exist.==
Yes, it does. And Palestinians have a right to exist as well, which is something the current Israeli leadership doesn’t agree with. Their actions speak for themselves and those actions are are geared towards the elimination of Palestinians.
- DarkestBeforeDawn - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 1:11 pm:
==all about peace and love and dignity.==
You judge a worldwide movement by its extreme while begging for nuance that others don’t judge Israel by its current extreme governance. Make it make sense.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 1:23 pm:
=== judge a worldwide movement by its extreme===
My own concern is that the extremists are moving the Overton Window.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 1:30 pm:
Rahm, I understand and sympathize with your concerns. I don’t think Rich wants us to go into a significant back and forth defining, exploring and suggesting solutions - although it’s a need to be addressed. I only ask that in addition to your religious faith and your understanding of policy concerns by the political entities running the state, that you continue to have philosophical faith in the need to strenuously support democracy here at home. Now, that democracy is being threatened by one party. The other party is our only hope to protect it. Please don’t let the flawed extremists of that party take you out of the fight to protect our democracy or worse send you into the arms of the false political prophets of the enemy.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 1:36 pm:
===I don’t think Rich wants us to go into a===
What really tires me is just seeing a rerun of Twitter spats play out in comments here verbatim.
This is precisely why I usually try to avoid national and international issues. Pure talking points.
I posted this mainly to highlight how an editorial board undermined one of the paper’s reporters.
- DarkestBeforeDawn - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 1:48 pm:
==This is precisely why I usually try to avoid national and international issues.==
Agree with your frustration; I think it would be great if national/international lobbies stopped involving themselves in our local elections.
- Rahm’s Parking Meter - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 2:03 pm:
Norseman, you are correct and I agree with you too and I agree with Rich also.
But to the credit of a lot of you, this is also a great community to comment and in and that’s why I stay a fan.
You guys to get me to think.
- Rahm’s Parking Meter - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 2:04 pm:
Comment in*
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 2:07 pm:
= The other party is our only hope to protect it.=
There is the distinct possibility that two things can be true at once. As an independent, I have been voting more heavily for democrats in the last 10 years than all of the previous years of voting combined. At the same time I have serious disagreements with the progressive/far left wing of that party.
=I posted this mainly to highlight how an editorial board undermined one of the paper’s reporters.=
I have ceased to expect the editorial board at the trib to be anything more than another version of cable news. They have chosen a side and will shamelessly support that side. Not what the editorial board of the trib used to be but that I think ceased in the 1990’s for all practical purposes. Actively undermining a staff reporter is just an new low for them.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 3:21 pm:
JS Mill +1
- Shytown - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 3:58 pm:
I love myself some discourse on this platform, but I don’t follow. Sacks isn’t an elected official. Why is he under an obligation to go on the record with a reporter about a story that is obviously another aipac is evil story? His contribution was publicly disclosed, no? Also for all the discourse around “outside” money, aren’t all if not most of the individual donations to those two pacs mostly local people (outside of the direct aipac pac contribution)? It’s mostly individual local contributors.
Beyond that, I fail to see a problem with people using a platform to both own and share their narrative in full vs a 30 or 40 word soundbite. Anyone who bothered to read his piece knows there’s a lot of nuance to this, and I thought it was refreshing and even bold to put himself out there like that. He’s hardly hiding. Not a single news story would ever be able to give that the ink it required, and I think most of my Jewish friends who feel constantly under attack because they simply believe in the right of Israel to exist needed someone to speak for them. I glad he did.
- Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 5:02 pm:
- Why is he under an obligation to go on the record with a reporter -
He isn’t, the point is that the editorial board gave him an unchallenged platform after he’d refused the interview with their own reporter. He wants to go on the record, but not if it means answering any questions he doesn’t like.
- Da big bad wolf - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 9:21 pm:
=== Why is he under an obligation to go on the record with a reporter about a story that is obviously another aipac is evil story?===
Are you sure Jake Sheridan was going to write an “AIPAC is evil” story? How do you come to that conclusion? How is that obvious? By asking questions?
And isn’t the issue the Tribune employees backstabbing their own coworker the main point? Of course Sacks can say what he wants. Nobody is saying he can’t.
- Shytown - Wednesday, Mar 25, 26 @ 10:35 pm:
== He wants to go on the record, but not if it means answering any questions he doesn’t like. ==
He or any other human on the planet can choose any platform they want to communicate. In fact he could have gone on LinkedIn or Facebook; could’ve written a piece for substack. He chose the editorial board and I’m guessing because the tribune has been obsessed with all things aipac. It was a smart move IMO.