Opinion | What does election interference mean to you?

In recent years, elections have dominated news cycles — Trump has famously complained about elections, while Russia famously interfered in the 2016 cycle. Just last week, the US accused the Russian media system of interfering again, this time in the 2024 election. The US government took this threat to election integrity seriously, lambasting Russia for interfering in democracy. 

While these incidents definitely raise concerns, lobbying remains the most fearful form of democratic interference — internal interference against the needs and wishes of the people. Behind closed doors, your elected officials are raking in thousands of dollars from corporate and action group lobbies.

The term “lobbying” has disputed origins, but it’s possible it came to be from power brokers courting former President Ulysses S. Grant off the record in a hotel lobby lounge. Today, corporations, action groups, labor unions, trade associations and other organizations spend billions of dollars yearly to influence Congress and federal agencies.

In theory, lobbying implies “the persuasion of a public official.” Constitutionally protected as a First Amendment right, the right to petition the government,  the only requirement is the disclosement of donations. However, in practice, even though every American has the right to lobby, megamillion lobbying firms wield unfathomable power on governmental policy as the average American cannot compete financially.

This is made insidiously more possible by the landmark 2021 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United, a conservative think tank that broke Election Committee rules for donations. In other words, the decision removed restrictions and enabled unlimited financial spending on campaigns, threatening the agency of the people.

Today, one of the most pertinent of these lobbyists is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — AIPAC. AIPAC is an American lobbying organization that works to “strengthen bipartisan support” for the US-Israel relationship and Israeli interests. According to FEC data, AIPAC has already spent over $100 million on the 2024 Election, paying Senators, Representatives, presidential candidates, party groups and leadership PACs. 

AIPAC supports Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which has killed over 40,000 Palestinians and been deemed a genocide by the UN. Additionally, AIPAC advocates for a full-faucet flow of munitions and funding to Israel since Oct. 7 and targeting ceasefire-supporting Congressmembers.

Take Jamaal Bowman, the principal-turned-politician who was running for his third term as New York’s 16th Congressional District Democratic representative. After visiting Hebron in 2021, Bowman became an ardent opponent of the occupation, denouncing it and introducing a bill to recognize the Nakba. While Bowman did condemn Hamas, he also loudly called for a ceasefire and has accused Israel of genocide, muddying his chances as a re-elect candidate.

In response, AIPAC endorsed pro-Israel candidate George Latimer. Latimer, a wealthy multimillionaire, lives on the outskirts of the 16th Congressional District and reflects a minority in the district. Bowman, who grew up in a working class Black neighborhood, felt the support from the people but knew his chances were low in the face of the millions of AIPAC dollars — AIPAC spent upwards of two million per week against his campaign prior to the June 25 New York Democratic Primary.

This power was reflected in the results — Bowman polled 17% lower than Latimer after the most expensive House of Representatives primary in U.S. history and lost the election. With nearly limitless pockets against them, dissenters to Israel are being squashed.

In a direct quote from AIPAC’s website, during this year’s primaries, “[A]n AIPAC-endorsed candidate has won in every district (322 races) where an endorsee was on the ballot.” In other words, AIPAC is the hammer in a demented game of whack-a-mole, one that crushes the support of the people. What part of this system seems democratic when 61% of Americans are against arms shipments to Israel?

While AIPAC achieves their political aims, American defense contractors are profiting during Israel’s war. Lockheed-Martin, America’s largest defense contractor by market share, lobbied millions of dollars to pro-Israel politicians running for Congress.

Since Oct. 7, Lockheed-Martin has supplied Israel with F-16 and F-35 fighter jets used to bomb Gaza, AGM-14 114 Hellfire missiles, CH-53K King Stallion heavy lift helicopters for soldier ground transport and the target-shredding AGM-114 R9X missile that targeted journalists in November. 

On Dec. 28, Lockheed-Martin received a $10.5 million contract modification to advance research on government projects, but this modification most notably “provide[s] continued development … in support of F-35 system development and design for the government of Israel.” 

In a sick cycle, Lockheed-Martin’s lobbying aims to secure pro-war candidates like Vice President Kamala Harris who in turn support Israel’s offensive and, according to an adviser, has no plans to turn off the tap of arms shipments to Israel.

Lobbying is seen as a legal yet unfortunately essential facet of our democracy system. But when you have large mega corporations controlling your political system top to bottom, it calls for a flag on the play — internal interference, if you will. A flag that necessitates review.

A democracy can and should not be bought. In that case, are we living in one? 

Jake Vasilias writes about the environment, social justice and sports. Write to him at jpv25@pitt.edu