* 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…

* 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.