Bowman’s Loss Reveals the Dangers of Unregulated ‘Dark Money’ Funds in Primaries

Last week, New York Democratic Representative Jamaal Bowman was defeated in his bid for a third term in Congress. In describing the outcome, newspaper headlines and media analysts only scratched the surface of why and how this happened and the consequences this contest would have on future elections.

For their part, pro-Israel groups, while acknowledging that they spent a combined $25 million dollars to defeat Bowman, tried to play it two ways. On the one hand, they gloated that their involvement was decisive proof that “being pro-Israel was good policy and good politics.” Like gangsters of old they wanted to send a message of fear to other candidates that “if you cross us, we’ll get you too.” On the other hand, they attempted to downplay their role suggesting that Bowman’s loss was due to his “radicalism,” with voters demonstrating their preference for the more “centrist” candidate, negatively comparing Bowman’s passion with the staider demeanor of his opponent, County Executive George Latimer.

The lessons the media deduced from all of this were that pro-Israel groups indeed won, progressives lost, and that supporting Palestinian rights was an electorally dangerous proposition. This, however, ignored the deeper story that played out in this election.

If the party doesn’t address this issue, they may lose a sufficient number of their base who are resentful of the party establishment’s failure to both stop the genocide in Gaza and to defend progressive champions like Jamaal Bowman.

First and foremost, it was about the huge amounts of money spent, why and how it was used, and the impact it had on the contest. The $25 million pro-Israel groups spent to defeat Bowman was by far the most ever expended in a congressional primary, used mainly for negative advertising and direct mail attacks smearing Bowman’s character and criticizing his style. Virtually no mention of Israel was made in these ads.

During some points in the campaign, voters were nightly subjected to more than a half-dozen of these attack ads. The impression created was that Bowman was a flawed individual and an unworthy candidate. One observer told me that “if Jamaal’s mother had stayed at home watching this negative onslaught, she wouldn’t have voted for her son either.” That’s the role of negative ads: to damage the candidates being attacked so that they are defined as so flawed that their supporters are discouraged from voting on Election Day. This tactic is simply an expensive form of voter suppression.

In reality, Latimer outpaced Bowman in “radicalism” by making outrageous, racially tinged comments that could have been used against him. But Bowman didn’t have $25 million to define and destroy Latimer’s character. And so, the impression was created that Bowman was a loose cannon and Latimer was the responsible candidate. To be sure, racism played a role in all of this as the contest became “the angry, frightening young black man versus the calm, thoughtful older white guy.”

How the money was used is one thing, but why it was raised is something else to consider. Pro-Israel groups are running scared. They are losing the public debate over policy—especially among Democrats. Most Democrats are deeply opposed to Israeli policies in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian lands. Majorities want a cease-fire and an end to settlements. And they want to stop further arms shipments to Israel.

Knowing this, pro-Israel groups never make their campaigns a referendum on Israel. Instead, they focus their attention on the character of their opponents. When they win, they claim that it was a victory for Israel and support for its policies, when it most decidedly isn’t and never was.

There was another factor in this contest that was largely ignored by commentators. Bowman’s congressional district had been redistricted last year (by a statewide committee that included Latimer). The new district removed many of the areas that had been more favorable to Bowman and included new areas that were more favorable to Latimer. This made Bowman vulnerable, providing pro-Israel groups with the opportunity to play in this race and make it look like they won on the merits.

Historically this is how they’ve done their work—only going after vulnerable candidates. It’s why they left alone other equally strong pro-Palestinian, but less vulnerable, members of Congress. It’s a cowardly approach, to be sure, but it gives them bragging rights they can use to cower others into thinking they are invincible.

Examining who the donors to these pro-Israel campaigns were, we find that while they are largely supporters of Israel, many of the very large contributors are billionaire Republicans who take great pleasure in meddling in a Democratic primary helping to defeat progressive candidates. The use of unregulated “dark money” that is increasingly playing a role in primaries ought to set off alarms. Twice I tried and failed to get the Democratic Party to ban such “dark money” funds. My warning then was that if this tactic can be used by pro-Israel groups now, why won’t other powerful lobbies make use of this approach in the future. If left unchecked, America’s democracy, already distorted by big money, will be swamped and destroyed by billionaires who will make elections their game in which to manipulate voters at will.

One final observation for Democrats: While Bowman was defeated, support for Palestinian rights continues to grow. And the resentment of voters who favored Bowman and other targeted members of Congress will also continue to grow. These are Democratic voters that U.S. President Joseph Biden will need to win in November. If the party doesn’t address this issue, they may lose a sufficient number of their base who are resentful of the party establishment’s failure to both stop the genocide in Gaza and to defend progressive champions like Jamaal Bowman. Seen in this light, “Israel’s win” in the Bowman contest may negatively impact Democrats’ chances for victory in November.