In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) into law. The law deputized the Department of Justice (DOJ) to collect a registry of “foreign agents” operating in the United States. Among other definitions, FARA defines a foreign agent as ‘‘act[ing] within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information service employee or political consultant for or in the interests of [a] foreign principal.’’ The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) meets that definition.
Failure to Comply
However, AIPAC has long refused to register with the DOJ as a foreign agent. Originally founded as the ‘‘American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs’’ in 1954, AIPAC has continuously operated in the United States on behalf of the Israeli government. Likewise, the Israeli government qualifies as a ‘foreign principal’ under FARA, defined as ‘‘a government of a foreign country.’’ Fulfilling both definitions, FARA requires that organizations like AIPAC ‘‘shall [not] act as an agent of a foreign principal unless [it] has filed with the Attorney General a true and complete registration’’ as a foreign agent.
A Public Declaration
On AIPAC’s website, the background is a wide emblazoned meeting of the American and Israeli flags. In big, fully-capitalized bold font, the site’s banner proudly reads: ‘‘SECURING THE FUTURE OF THE U.S.-ISRAELI PARTNERSHIP.’’ The accompanying introductory text likewise greets the reader, ‘‘WE ENCOURAGE [sic] the U.S. government to enact specific policies that create a strong, enduring, and mutually beneficial relationship with our ally Israel.’’ Continuing further, the site declares, ‘‘WE STAND [sic] with those who stand with Israel’’ such that AIPAC ‘‘is the largest pro-Israel PAC in America.’’
In furtherance of that mission, AIPAC is the largest political action committee (PAC) in the country. As defined by Open Secrets, PACs are ‘‘organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates.’’ This mission is echoed in AIPAC’s activities, where the group spent $53 million to influence the outcome of the 2024 elections.
In its publicity materials, AIPAC boasts a political graveyard of candidates it drenched money on to ensure their defeat. These candidates span the political spectrum, including incumbents and challengers, men and women, Republicans and Democrats. Among AIPAC’s most reviled opponents, we see a broad range from the eccentric YouTuber-turned-politician Brandon Herrera (R-TX) to the mundane, like state senator Clarence Lam (D-MD).
As is evident from the diversity of their opponents, AIPAC’s political contributions follow scant rhyme or reason beyond a paramount concern: the State of Israel. Hailing itself as ‘‘America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,’’ AIPAC lauds its activities with contempt for the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Deferential Treatment of AIPAC
This disregard for the Foreign Agents Registration Act is a problem because it undermines the rule of law. In the legal system, rules cannot be applied arbitrarily. In AIPAC’s case, the organization’s supreme political clout has shielded it from the Department of Justice’s wrath. However, other organizations interested in the United States’ relationship with foreign states have not received the same treatment.
In Attorney General v. Northern Irish Aid Committee (1981), the Northern Irish Aid Committee (NORAID) was compelled to register under FARA. NORAID, an Irish American organization sympathetic to Irish nationalism, ran afoul of the United States’ cozy relationship with the British government. Accordingly, NORAID was held to a stricter standard than AIPAC.
Yet, the DOJ ran its campaign against NORAID a step further: requiring the group to register as a foreign agent on behalf of the Irish Republican Army, a terrorist organization. This is a standard of scrutiny utterly foreign to the pro-Israeli AIPAC. The reason can be attributed to the fact that the United States and Israel have a close diplomatic relationship. Additionally, AIPAC’s 6 million members are an influential voting bloc and affluent donor pool.
The Department of Justice is scared. AIPAC is too politically influential, and its influence has insulated the organization from scrutiny against the very laws designed to constrain it.
First Amendment Concerns
In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech and the right to petition the government. AIPAC would likely contend that its advocacy falls squarely within these constitutional protections. However, the First Amendment is not an unyielding panacea to cure AIPAC of its disclosure requirements. As eloquently articulated in the National Law Review, the First Amendment is not implicated by FARA:
‘‘The theory behind FARA was elegantly constitutional: sunlight, not censorship, would preserve the republic.’’
In AIPAC’s case, the group has the First Amendment right to air its pro-Israel point of view. However, nothing in the First Amendment shields AIPAC from the requirement to disclose its advocacy as that of a foreign agent. As long as AIPAC remains the self-proclaimed ‘‘Pro-Israel Lobby,’’ the DOJ should fight for AIPAC’s registration under FARA.
Senior Richie Dockery is a Contributing Staff Writer. His email is rdockery@fandm.edu.