AIPAC is pouring an eye-popping $4.4 million into an obscure California special election, spending heavily to defeat a Democratic state senator who won the primary by 26 points for a congressional seat that will be occupied for only a few months.
The extraordinary spending against state Sen. Aisha Wahab has transformed the Aug. 18 contest to replace disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell into one of the largest political investments by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its affiliated groups anywhere in the country.
The size of the investment, particularly in a race where Israel has barely figured into the campaign, suggests AIPAC may be fighting for something bigger than the seat itself: demonstrating the political cost for Democrats who cross the powerful pro-Israel group.
Wahab and Melissa Hernandez are both Democrats. Under California’s top-two primary system, the two advanced from a crowded field to the Aug. 18 special general election to fill the remainder of Swalwell’s term. Wahab won about 42.8% of the vote in the June special primary, compared with 16.8% for Hernandez. AIPAC had previously endorsed Swalwell’s 2022 reelection run for Congress and donated over $61,000 to his campaign.
The winner will serve only until January, but the real prize is the incumbency advantage for the November general election when both Wahab and Hernandez are vying for election to a full two-year term.
The organization’s spending in California has drawn particular attention because of Wahab’s outspoken views on Israel and Gaza. At an April candidate forum, Wahab said she considers the destruction in Gaza to constitute genocide. Hernandez declined to answer the question with a yes or no, saying instead that Israel had a right to defend itself while arguing that “the destruction in Gaza has gone too far and the people are paying the cost.”
AIPAC and AIPAC-aligned groups have put millions into the California race against Wahab, according to spending reports, making the contest an unusually expensive political fight for such a short-term prize.
For Thom Hartmann, a political analyst and nationally syndicated progressive radio host, the seat itself is beside the point.
“Why spend millions against a candidate who won by 26 points?” Hartmann told the Washington Examiner. “Because the seat was never the point.”
Hartmann argued that super PACs, including two tied to AIPAC, are spending millions to establish a political consequence for anti-Israel Democrats.
“Nobody spends that kind of money so they can vote for four months,” he said. “They’re buying a demonstration, and the goal is to terrify every Democrat in the country who’s thinking about saying something critical about Gaza.”
California political expert Matt Klink similarly described the spending as an exercise in deterrence.
“A low-turnout August special election is exactly the kind of race big money can still flip, and four and a half months of incumbency sets Hernandez up for the real fight in November,” Klink told the Washington Examiner. “Sunk costs don’t scare a super PAC. Precedent does.”
AIPAC’s involvement, Klink said, sends a message to Democrats who are considering more aggressive criticism of Israel or the war in Gaza.
“Every Democrat weighing a harsh word on Gaza will watch what happens to the politicians who say it,” he said.
That strategy is notable because the advertising barrage has largely avoided making Israel or Gaza the explicit issue.
Instead, the attacks have focused on public safety and other issues more closely connected to voters’ everyday concerns. One reported $555,000 expenditure targeted Wahab’s public safety record, while a push poll asked voters about issues including sex trafficking and fentanyl.
“AIPAC likely did research that highlighted that ‘soft on sex trafficking’ polls better than ‘called Gaza a genocide,’” he said. “Public-safety attacks let the knife swing without ever saying the word Israel.”
Mike Fahey, a political expert, said the significance of the spending extends well beyond whether AIPAC can change the outcome of the California race.
“The most interesting thing about the $4.4 million isn’t whether AIPAC can change the outcome of this particular election,” Fahey told the Washington Examiner. “It’s what the spending tells every other candidate watching.”
Political money, Fahey said, is not always about winning the race immediately in front of an organization, but instead, establishing a consequence for crossing it.
“If candidates around the country see that taking positions AIPAC strongly opposes can bring millions of dollars into even a relatively obscure special election, that has an impact well beyond this district,” he said.
That is why, Fahey said, Wahab’s 26-point primary victory does not necessarily make the spending irrational.
But there is a risk for AIPAC, too: If Wahab wins despite the spending barrage, the result could undermine the very deterrent effect the money is intended to create.
“Money buys mailers and TV ads, not votes, once a primary base has already decided,” Klink said. “A Wahab win becomes progressives’ example that AIPAC’s ‘cross us and we’ll end your career’ model is cracking.”
Garry South, a veteran California political expert, told the Washington Examiner that overwhelming outside spending can sometimes become a liability for the candidate it is intended to help.
“Given Netanyahu’s and Israel’s bad behavior currently — obliterating Gaza, luring Trump into a war with Iran — it’s hard to figure how AIPAC’s big-footed intrusion into a campaign is a positive,” South said.
South added that if “an outside force becomes too dominant in a campaign,” it can easily “become a liability for the candidate they are attempting to elect.”
Fahey is more cautious about characterizing the spending as either strength or anxiety. It can be both, he said.
“The ability to put $4.4 million into a low-profile special election is an extraordinary demonstration of political strength,” Fahey said. “Feeling the need to spend that much money in a race where your preferred outcome is far from guaranteed can simultaneously suggest concern about whether that influence is translating into votes.”
AIPAC has dramatically increased its political spending in recent years, putting tens of millions of dollars behind candidates it views as allies while targeting those it opposes.
The New York Times reported that since its first involvement in elections, AIPAC’s political spending has doubled to $67.2 million, with much of the money flowing into Democratic primaries.
That spending has produced mixed results. In Michigan, AIPAC-aligned groups spent millions backing Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) in the Democratic Senate primary, only to see progressive Abdul el Sayed win the nomination in what became a closely watched test of the party’s direction. AIPAC-backed candidates fared better in Missouri, where Rep. Wesley Bell (D-MO) defeated progressive former Rep. Cori Bush in the Democratic primary. Bush, who had previously faced significant outside spending against her, lost her congressional seat in 2024.
That mixed record makes the Aug. 18 election potentially significant far beyond California.
“If you spend $4.4 million in a relatively contained race and the candidate you’re opposing still wins comfortably, other politicians are going to notice that too,” Fahey said.
Hartmann sees the race as part of a broader debate over the influence of unlimited political spending, arguing that voters can be inundated with political messages while having little understanding of the interests behind them.
CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATS ENDORSE A SELF-DESTRUCTIVE ‘BILLIONAIRE TAX’
“This is the poisoned fruit of Citizens United,” he said.
A Wahab victory would not mean AIPAC’s political influence has disappeared, nor would it prove that outside money is irrelevant. But it could demonstrate that there are limits to what millions of dollars in negative advertising can accomplish against a candidate with a strong base and a substantial electoral advantage.