The Real Problem in Democratic Primaries Isn’t AIPAC — It’s Big Money

Recent Democratic primaries — from Illinois to North Carolina to Michigan — have sparked outrage over independent expenditure spending by AIPAC, crypto interests, and now AI-funded political groups. Progressive activists are furious. Social media fills with denunciations. Candidates are pressured to reject this money.

But we should pause and ask a harder question:

Are we upset about AIPAC, crypto, and AI — or are we upset about unlimited independent expenditures in Democratic primaries?

If we oppose Big Money only when it supports causes we dislike, we are not fighting corruption. We are fighting for advantage.

Justice Democrats operate a SuperPAC. Labor unions spend heavily in primaries. Progressive 501(c)(4) groups flood races with outside money based on single-issue questionnaires. Much of the progressive ecosystem relies on the same independent expenditure tools it condemns when used by its opponents.

This is not hypocrisy; it’s adaptation. Many progressives argue we cannot unilaterally disarm. I understand that argument. I have donated to independent expenditure efforts myself. But we should be honest about the cost.

Unlimited political spending amplifies the power of the ultra-wealthy and concentrated interests. It distorts representation. It weakens trust. And in Democratic primaries — where most House seats are effectively decided — it shapes who governs.

The right did not stumble into this system. Over decades, conservative legal activists and donors pursued a deliberate strategy to dismantle campaign finance limits and entrench the political power of wealth. They invested in institutions, legal infrastructure, judicial appointments, and long-term messaging. The results are visible in a Supreme Court that views political spending as protected speech and in a campaign finance system awash in unlimited money.

What is the progressive equivalent of that long-term strategy?

Too often, our answer is Citizens United. We denounce it and pin our hopes on a constitutional amendment to overturn it. I support those efforts. But treating an amendment as the primary solution risks turning it into the “Two States solution” of campaign finance reform — morally satisfying, politically distant, and indefinitely deferred.

In the meantime, parts of the progressive movement have grown structurally dependent on SuperPACs. Organizations fundraise around independent expenditures. Consultants build business models around them. Donors enjoy the leverage they provide.

But let’s be clear: progressives will not out-raise the right in an arms race of unlimited money. That is a contest we are unlikely to win.

Our comparative advantage should be grassroots legitimacy — representing people over money. And right now, there is enormous political opportunity in that space. Large numbers of voters are hungry for representation that feels independent of corporate and special-interest influence. We see it in insurgent campaigns gaining traction. We see it in candidates rejecting corporate PAC money. We see it in growing skepticism toward both parties’ ties to concentrated wealth.

Yet trust in the Democratic Party remains fragile. Many voters view the party as overly influenced by elite networks and interest groups. Leadership bodies often back candidates aligned with established donor ecosystems over those rooted in their communities. That dynamic depresses enthusiasm, weakens turnout, and reinforces the perception that the system is rigged.

Primaries are where this matters most.

Because of gerrymandering and polarization, most House seats are not competitive in the general election. Fewer than a dozen are true toss-ups. That means our elected representatives are largely chosen in primaries. And primaries are uniquely vulnerable to independent expenditure spending.

When outside groups can spend unlimited sums — or credibly threaten to — they shape candidate behavior even before ads air. Members of Congress understand that crossing a well-funded interest can trigger a primary challenge backed by millions of dollars. The chilling effect is real. Policy positions on issues ranging from Middle East politics to financial regulation are influenced by this dynamic.

Even when outside groups do not spend, the threat can be enough.

If we want structural reform, reducing the influence of Big Money in Democratic primaries should be a strategic priority. This is not about unilateral disarmament in general elections. It is about strengthening the legitimacy of our own candidate selection process.

What might that look like?

Candidates can challenge opponents to adopt People’s Pledge agreements that deter outside spending. State parties can adopt rules discouraging or penalizing independent expenditure involvement in Democratic primaries. Donors can refuse to fund candidates heavily backed by special-interest SuperPACs. Party committees can discourage consultants from simultaneously working on Democratic campaigns and special-interest independent expenditure efforts. Public financing systems can be expanded at the state and local level. Media organizations can devote more sustained attention to soft corruption and the structural effects of concentrated money.

None of these steps alone will solve the problem. But together they form the beginnings of a strategy.

Some state Democratic parties and national leaders have already begun exploring “People’s Primary” concepts — policies designed to reduce unrestricted independent expenditure spending in Democratic primaries while preserving the ability to compete in general elections. The logic is straightforward: even if independent expenditures are sometimes necessary to counter Republican spending in November, their use in Democratic primaries is corrosive to trust and long-term strength.

The Democratic Party cannot credibly position itself as the defender of democracy while tolerating a primary system dominated by outside money. Voters are not naïve. They see the ads. They see the mailers. They see candidates boosted or buried by groups with opaque funding streams.

If we are serious about political and economic reform, we must increase the voice of people and reduce the outsize influence of concentrated wealth. Waiting for a constitutional amendment is not a strategy. Winning an arms race in unlimited spending is not a strategy. Condemning Big Money only when it funds causes we oppose is not a strategy.

Focusing on Democratic primaries is achievable. It offers measurable milestones. And it directly addresses the legitimacy crisis facing the party.

If we want to rebuild trust, this is where we should begin.