The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) had the money, the political connections and two opportunities to stop Abdul El-Sayed from reaching the US Senate. Yet, despite tens of millions of dollars spent supporting his opponents, the Egyptian-American Democrat emerged victorious.
His victory in Michigan’s November 2026 midterm elections has become more than a historic political achievement. It represents a striking defeat for one of Washington’s most influential pro-Israel lobbying organisations and raises an uncomfortable question about the limits of political money in American democracy.
For years, AIPAC has used its financial resources and political influence to support candidates aligned with Israel’s interests while challenging those critical of Israeli government policies and US military assistance to Tel Aviv.
In Michigan, however, that strategy failed to prevent the election of a candidate who openly opposes American funding for what he describes as Israeli apartheid, genocide and war.
And El-Sayed made sure AIPAC heard his message.
‘Thank You for Giving Me the Opportunity to Defeat You Twice’
Speaking after his election victory, El-Sayed directed a pointed message at the pro-Israel lobbying organisation, accusing it of spending $42 million in an unsuccessful attempt to stop his political campaign.
“To AIPAC, which spent $42 million against us, thank you for giving me the opportunity to defeat you twice,” he declared.
His remarks referred to two separate electoral confrontations in which substantial political spending was directed towards candidates competing against him.
The first occurred during the Democratic primary, when AIPAC-linked political spending supported his rival, Haley Stevens.
The second came during the general election, when additional funds were directed towards supporting Republican candidate Mike Rogers.
Despite the financial resources mobilised against him, El-Sayed defeated his opponents and secured Michigan’s Senate seat.
But his victory speech went beyond electoral rivalry.
“We will give the money back to Americans. We don’t want our money being used to fund apartheid, genocide or wars,” he said.
The statement directly connected his electoral success with his opposition to US financial support for Israeli policies and military operations.
It also placed a broader question at the centre of the political debate: whether American public resources should continue supporting Israeli military policies while domestic voters face their own economic and social challenges.
For El-Sayed, defeating AIPAC-backed opponents was not simply about winning public office. His remarks framed the result as a rejection of the organisation’s political priorities and its ability to influence American elections through substantial financial expenditure.
Bernie Sanders Reveals How AIPAC’s Money Was Spent
Independent US Senator Bernie Sanders also drew attention to the scale of political spending directed against El-Sayed.
In a post on X following the election, Sanders said AIPAC had spent approximately $39 million attempting to prevent the Democratic candidate from winning Michigan’s Senate seat.
According to Sanders, the money was distributed across two stages of the election.
During the Democratic primary, approximately $30 million was spent supporting Haley Stevens, El-Sayed’s rival for the party’s nomination.
After El-Sayed advanced to the general election, an additional $9 million was directed towards supporting Republican candidate Mike Rogers.
The spending represented an attempt to defeat El-Sayed regardless of which party’s candidate stood against him.
Yet Sanders highlighted another figure that offered a different perspective on the election.
While AIPAC-linked spending reached tens of millions of dollars, El-Sayed received approximately $12 million in contributions from ordinary Americans.
For Sanders, the contrast demonstrated the potential of grassroots fundraising to challenge the financial influence of major political organisations.
The figures also expose one of the central contradictions of American electoral politics: candidates can attract substantial support from individual voters while simultaneously facing organised opposition funded by wealthy donors and politically influential interest groups.
Was It $39 Million or $42 Million?
The precise amount spent opposing El-Sayed differs across the accounts cited following the election.
El-Sayed placed the figure at $42 million, while Sanders cited approximately $39 million.
The Washington Post previously reported that AIPAC’s independent political committee had spent more than $30 million during the Democratic primary to support Stevens and oppose El-Sayed.
It subsequently contributed approximately $9 million to a political organisation supporting Rogers in the general election.
The difference between the figures reflects varying accounts of spending across different stages of the election and political organisations associated with AIPAC.
Although the precise total remains subject to those differences, the broader electoral outcome is clear: substantial financial resources were mobilised against El-Sayed, but they did not prevent his victory.
The Bigger Picture: AIPAC’s $120 Million Election Campaign
Michigan was not an isolated contest.
The 2026 midterm elections saw AIPAC and its affiliated political operation, United Democracy Project (UDP), commit enormous financial resources to congressional races across the United States.
According to an analysis published by The Intercept, their combined spending reached approximately $120 million during the election cycle.
The figures show that AIPAC’s direct expenditure totalled approximately $53.3 million, while United Democracy Project spent another $66.7 million.
Together, the two organisations directed substantially more money into the 2026 elections than during the previous congressional election cycle.
In 2024, their combined spending was approximately $95.1 million.
The increase to $120 million represents a rise of around 26 per cent in just two years.
These figures illustrate the extraordinary scale of the financial resources available to political organisations seeking to influence congressional elections and shape American policy towards Israel.
Michigan became one of the most prominent examples of that strategy.
Millions were channelled towards candidates competing against El-Sayed, whose political positions challenged continued US military support for Israel.
The scale of the spending reflected the importance AIPAC and its political allies placed on preventing the emergence of Democratic voices openly critical of Israeli policies.
Yet the outcome also demonstrated that financial superiority does not necessarily translate into electoral success.
El-Sayed’s victory did not eliminate AIPAC’s wider political influence, but it delivered a setback in one of the election cycle’s most closely watched confrontations.
How AIPAC Became One of Washington’s Most Influential Lobbying Organisations
To understand the significance of El-Sayed’s victory, it is necessary to examine the organisation he confronted.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, commonly known as AIPAC, is among the most prominent pro-Israel lobbying organisations in the United States.
Its principal objective is to strengthen political, military and economic relations between Washington and Tel Aviv.
The organisation has established an extensive presence in American political life, particularly through its relationships with members of Congress, government officials and electoral candidates.
AIPAC maintains that it is an American organisation, does not represent the Israeli government and does not receive funding from it.
It says its activities are supported by American citizens who favour strong relations between the United States and Israel.
According to figures published on its website, the organisation claims to have more than 6.5 million members.
Its political activities focus on mobilising congressional support for Israel, influencing legislative positions and supporting candidates whose policies align with its objectives.
That support also extends to electoral campaigns.
Through its political operations and affiliated organisations, AIPAC seeks to help elect candidates supportive of US-Israel relations while opposing politicians who challenge American military assistance to Tel Aviv or criticise Israeli government policies.
This approach has made the organisation an influential participant in debates concerning American foreign policy, military funding and congressional elections.
However, its influence has also attracted sustained scrutiny, particularly over the relationship between political donations and the positions adopted by elected representatives.
AIPAC’s Influence Extends Beyond Election Campaigns
Although election spending attracts considerable public attention, AIPAC’s political activities are not limited to supporting or opposing congressional candidates.
The organisation also spends millions of dollars annually on direct lobbying in Washington.
According to data compiled by OpenSecrets, AIPAC maintains substantial lobbying operations aimed at influencing lawmakers and government officials on legislation and policies concerning US-Israel relations.
These activities include direct engagement with members of Congress and efforts to shape political decisions affecting Israel.
The distinction between campaign expenditure and lobbying is important.
Election spending seeks to influence who enters Congress.
Direct lobbying seeks to influence the decisions those elected officials make once they hold office.
Together, these activities provide politically organised interest groups with multiple channels through which to pursue their objectives.
AIPAC’s financial influence has consequently remained the subject of political, media and academic debate, both within the United States and internationally.
Critics question the extent to which major political donors and lobbying organisations can shape congressional priorities, particularly when those priorities involve military assistance, foreign intervention and international conflicts.
The organisation, meanwhile, presents its activities as legitimate political advocacy by Americans who support the US-Israel partnership.
What El-Sayed’s Victory Means for AIPAC’s Political Strategy
The Michigan election has given renewed prominence to a longstanding debate about money and political representation in the United States.
AIPAC and its political affiliates entered the 2026 election cycle with substantial financial resources and a strategy of supporting candidates aligned with their positions on Israel.
In Michigan, that strategy encountered a candidate who openly challenged the organisation’s political priorities and refused to retreat from his criticism of Israeli policies.
El-Sayed’s success demonstrated that a candidate facing well-funded opposition can still win through electoral support and grassroots fundraising.
But the implications should not be overstated.
AIPAC’s defeat in Michigan does not mean its influence across Congress has disappeared, nor does one election establish that large political donations have become ineffective.
The organisation continues to operate within an American political system in which campaign financing and lobbying remain powerful instruments of political influence.
What makes Michigan different is that the organisation’s financial mobilisation failed to deliver its intended electoral outcome.
For El-Sayed, the result was an opportunity to publicly confront a lobbying organisation that had invested heavily in supporting his opponents.
For critics of AIPAC, it offered evidence that the organisation’s financial power can be challenged at the ballot box.
And for American voters, the contest raised a question likely to extend well beyond Michigan: when powerful lobbying organisations spend tens of millions of dollars to influence an election, whose interests ultimately determine the outcome?
