New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani recently stood before a cheering crowd in Brooklyn and delivered a troubling indictment of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel advocacy organization that has increasingly become a political villain in certain corners of both the left and right. Mamdani described AIPAC as one of the “monsters” of our political moment, accusing it of spending millions in dark money to divide Americans against one another.

The crowd applauded. Jewish organizations across the country did not.

The controversy surrounding Mamdani’s remarks is not merely about one politician’s rhetoric. It reflects a growing trend in American politics in which AIPAC has become a convenient symbol onto which broader frustrations about money, influence and foreign policy are projected. Increasingly, criticism that should be directed toward systemic problems in campaign finance is instead concentrated on a single organization closely associated with the Jewish community.

To be clear, AIPAC is not beyond criticism. It is a powerful advocacy group that actively participates in the political process. Like labor unions, environmental organizations, gun-rights groups and countless others, it raises money, supports candidates and seeks to influence public policy. Americans have every right to debate whether too much money flows through our political system.

But there is a meaningful difference between criticizing the role of money in politics and singling out AIPAC as uniquely sinister.

That distinction matters.

The United States has long been home to diaspora communities that advocate for policies affecting their ancestral homelands. Armenian Americans lobby Congress on issues involving Armenia and Azerbaijan. Cuban Americans have influenced U.S. policy toward Cuba for generations. Greek Americans, Irish Americans, Indian Americans, Taiwanese Americans and many others organize politically around matters that affect countries beyond America’s borders.

No one suggests these groups are inherently suspect. No one routinely labels them “monsters.” No one questions whether their participation in American democracy is legitimate.

Yet AIPAC is often treated differently.

One reason is the persistent effort by some critics to portray AIPAC as a foreign entity rather than what it actually is: an American organization funded by American citizens exercising their constitutional rights. The Department of Justice does not classify AIPAC as a foreign agent because it is not controlled by a foreign government. Its members and donors are American voters who support a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.

Earlier this year, Rep. Thomas Massie introduced legislation nicknamed the “AIPAC Act” that would effectively force organizations including AIPAC to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. While supporters claim the measure would apply broadly, the bill’s title revealed its intended target.

The logic behind such proposals is troubling. If advocating for policies that benefit another nation constitutes foreign influence, then countless diaspora organizations across the political spectrum would face similar scrutiny. The principle cannot be selectively applied to one group while exempting everyone else.

Closer to home, similar rhetoric has surfaced in Maryland politics. During the closely watched race to succeed retiring Congressman Steny Hoyer, critics accused AIPAC-aligned groups of attempting to “buy” a congressional seat through independent expenditures. Earlier this year, Sen. Chris Van Hollen went so far as to characterize AIPAC as “anti-American.”

That accusation deserves careful examination.

What exactly is anti-American about citizens voluntarily pooling resources to support candidates who reflect their values? Whether one agrees with those values is beside the point. Political advocacy is not a threat to democracy; it is democracy.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that many of the loudest critics of AIPAC are themselves passionate advocates for causes beyond America’s borders. They champion Palestinian rights, Ukrainian sovereignty, Tibetan autonomy, or humanitarian concerns in Sudan and elsewhere. They are fully entitled to do so.

That is how a free society works.

What becomes difficult to understand is why advocacy connected to one foreign cause is celebrated as moral engagement while advocacy connected to Israel is portrayed as evidence of corruption or divided loyalty. The inconsistency reveals that the objection is often not to foreign causes themselves, but specifically to the Americans who support this particular one.

Critics are free to disagree with AIPAC’s positions. They are free to challenge its spending, oppose its endorsements and debate its policy priorities. That is the essence of democratic discourse.

But when criticism becomes fixation, and when one organization is uniquely portrayed as a dark force manipulating the nation from behind the scenes, something more troubling is taking place.

AIPAC is not the only advocacy group in American politics. It is not the only organization representing the interests of a diaspora community. It is not the only entity spending money to influence elections.

It is simply one voice among many.

To pretend otherwise is not a serious critique of money in politics. It is a distortion of reality and one that risks fueling old prejudices under the guise of modern political activism.

_____

©2026 The Baltimore Sun. Visit at baltimoresun.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.