176

Cori Bush’s Opponent Is Swimming in Right-Wing AIPAC Cash (jacobin.com)

submitted 3 months ago by nkat2112@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@lemmy.world

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This article is noteworthy for the historical track record of Cori Bush's challenger, Wesley Bell. It covers how Bell betrayed the BLM movement despite the widespread support he received from it.

Also noteworthy are these two paragraphs that explain how Bell has incredible funding from the genocide enabling Israeli-aligned AIPAC lobby.

But rather than build his campaign against Hawley, Bell dramatically shifted his priorities, pivoting to mount a challenge against a left-wing Missouri politician instead. Last June, Bell called Cori Bush to promise he wouldn’t run against her. Then, after the Hamas attack in Israel on October 7 and the outbreak of Israel’s assault on Gaza, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) “let it be publicly known that a challenger to Bush would have effectively bottomless fundraising support,” writes Ryan Grim. Bell subsequently dropped out of his race against Hawley and turned around to challenge Bush. This opened the floodgates for the Israel lobby, which has spent a staggering $7 million on Bell’s run to capture Bush’s seat.

As of July 2024, AIPAC’s massive donations only account for 62 percent of Bell’s contributions — in part because Missouri Republicans have lavished Bell’s coffers. The Huffington Post reported that Bell’s campaign filings included donations “from notable sources such as Steven Tilley, a GOP former Missouri House speaker who’s now a lobbyist,” and “Daniel Loeb, the billionaire founder of the hedge fund Third Point, who has donated millions to Republican causes.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024

176 points (95.4% liked)

politics

19107 readers

3069 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News