AIPAC Spent $7 Million to Stop Daniel Biss. He Won Anyway.

Summary

Bulwark Takes — Summary: “AIPAC Spent $7 Million to Stop Daniel Biss. He Won Anyway.”
Date: March 25, 2026
Host: Lauren Egan (The Bulwark)
Guest: Daniel Biss (Mayor of Evanston and Democratic nominee, IL-9)

---

Episode Overview

This episode examines how Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss won the Democratic primary in Illinois’s 9th congressional district despite a $7 million campaign by AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) to defeat him. The discussion unpacks Biss’s campaign strategy, the dynamics of outside spending in Democratic primaries, and the future implications for party politics and progressive candidates confronting AIPAC’s influence.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Recap of the Race and AIPAC’s Involvement

[00:45–03:40]

• Biss provides a concise recap:
  • 15-candidate Democratic primary.
  • AIPAC targeted Biss for his refusal to promise unconditional military aid to Israel, instead supporting another candidate.
  • AIPAC invested heavily: raised funds, organized events, and spent over $7 million via a shell super PAC (‘Elect Chicago Women’)—far more than all other expenditures in the race.
  • Biss and his campaign centered the race on transparency, calling out AIPAC’s funding sources and motives, including Trump donor involvement and attempts at secrecy.
  • On election day, AIPAC’s candidate finished a distant third; Biss’s main opponent was “much more anti-Israel” than Biss himself, highlighting AIPAC’s strategy flop.

Notable Quote:

“We made a decision pretty early on that we were going to make this the issue... This is money from AIPAC and Trump donors... they're trying to hide this from you, they're lying to you about it.”
— Daniel Biss [02:14]

---

2. The Personal Impact: Identity, Criticism & Antisemitism

[03:40–05:14]

• Lauren Egan asks about the personal toll: Biss is Jewish, with an Israeli mother and Holocaust survivor grandparents.
• Biss describes the attacks as deeply personal and insulting:
  • Claims by opponents implied Biss was anti-Jewish or indifferent to antisemitism—“All of which is wrong and pretty insulting.”
  • Felt AIPAC’s inflexibility and erasure of nuance was “very un-Jewish,” ignoring Judaism’s tradition of debate and pluralism.

Notable Quote:

“Their approach was so hardline... there cannot be nuance... it just somehow felt very un-Jewish to me.”
— Daniel Biss [04:34]

---

3. Direct Engagement with AIPAC: Good Faith or Political Weaponization?

[05:14–07:14]

• Biss initially sought dialogue with AIPAC, hoping to keep them neutral.
• He reflects that while talking to those you disagree with is a legislator’s responsibility, AIPAC acted in bad faith and later weaponized those conversations.
• AIPAC saw Biss’s Jewish identity as a unique threat:
  • “You are the most dangerous person possible because... we can’t just say, 'that’s some knee-jerk anti-Israel or antisemitic person.'”
  • His perspective couldn’t easily be dismissed, so they sought to “crush” him.

Notable Quote:

“Their position was, ‘No, Daniel, you are the most dangerous person possible because your Jewish identity... means we can’t dismiss you.’”
— Daniel Biss [06:08]

---

4. Effects on Party Discourse and Antisemitism

[08:27–10:52]

• Lauren Egan notes Democratic strategists fear that AIPAC’s closed-off stance could push voters and candidates to more extreme or even antisemitic positions.
• Biss agrees this is dangerous:
  • Cites a broader range of Israeli debate compared to the US.
  • Warns that weaponizing accusations of antisemitism against legitimate dissent is “counterproductive”—repeated false labeling can create real alienation and resentment.
  • He points out the “absurdity” of being accused of suppressing Jewish voices when he was endorsed by J Street, another major Jewish, pro-Israel group.

Notable Quote:

“If you label someone who’s not antisemitic but has a legitimate political disagreement... as an antisemite, you’re pushing them away and... creating antisemites.”
— Daniel Biss [09:44]

---

5. Campaign Strategy: Polling, Messaging, and Transparency

[10:52–15:29]

• Biss’s team polled the district months before AIPAC began spending:

  • Found AIPAC to be “toxically unpopular” with high name recognition among the district’s many Jewish voters.
  • Began relentless messaging early: press releases, statements tying AIPAC to outside money and Trump donors, and continuous transparency about funding sources.
  • Spent limited ad dollars explicitly calling out AIPAC and the hidden money, explaining the origins and motives behind the advertising blitz.

• Challenges: AIPAC never mentioned Israel/Palestine directly in ads; tried to obscure connections via shell PACs and focus on unrelated hot-button issues.

• The secrecy and ambiguities around the funding actually helped Biss, as it forced his opponent to constantly “explain” the support.

Notable Quote:

“The fact it was so cloak and dagger... meant that my opponent... had to keep on explaining it. And I think she probably made a mistake to continue trying to hide it instead of just coming clean.”
— Daniel Biss [14:15]

---

6. Lessons for the Democratic Party and 2028

[15:29–18:05]

• Biss warns AIPAC and similar super PAC involvement is “unbelievably dangerous.”
• “Don’t meet with them”—Biss acknowledges strategic error in talking to AIPAC and advises future candidates to keep their distance, as their bad faith cannot be trusted.
• Calls for the party to reject not only AIPAC but also AI or crypto super PACs that pour outside money into primaries and distract from true policy debate.
• Emphasizes that relentless truth-telling is the only antidote:
  • Candidates should prepare their supporters for outside attacks and explain clearly who’s funding negative campaigns.
  • Warns against twisting oneself to please AIPAC just to avoid being targeted—urges authenticity and faith in constituents’ values.

Notable Quote:

“Be yourself. Explain to your constituents what you stand for. And I’m guessing if it’s not where AIPAC is, it’s probably where your constituents are on this issue right now.”
— Daniel Biss [17:32]

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• “[AIPAC’s approach] felt very un-Jewish to me... Just gross, honestly.” — Biss [04:54]
• “I was proud to be supported by J Street, another predominantly Jewish organization that has a different vision of what it means to be pro-Israel.” — Biss [10:31]
• “We were totally relentless because we felt like we’re going to be outspent by so much. We’ve got to make sure voters understand what this is about, otherwise we’re just going to get drowned out.” — Biss [12:58]

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:45 – Introduction to Biss’s win and the primary context
• 01:27 – Biss’s summary of AIPAC’s involvement and tactics
• 03:40 – Personal reflections on attacks relating to Biss’s Jewish identity
• 05:31 – Early attempts to engage with AIPAC and reasons for AIPAC’s hostility
• 08:27 – Discussion of potential for alienation and risk of fueling antisemitism
• 10:52 – The campaign’s strategic polling and relentless early messaging
• 13:34 – The effectiveness (and challenge) of relentless transparency and narrative ownership
• 15:47 – Lessons for Democrats and advice to candidates confronting outside spending

---

Final Thoughts

Daniel Biss’s victory in the Illinois 9th is portrayed as a template for Democrats seeking to counter huge outside spending—specifically by AIPAC—using honesty, transparency, and confidence in voters’ intelligence. Biss urges future candidates to resist bad-faith actors, avoid compromising their principles for political expediency, and make sure constituents are fully informed about the sources and motives of negative campaigning.

---

For those strategizing Democratic campaigns or following debates over outside money and foreign policy influence, this episode is essential listening and offers a roadmap for confronting—and countering—super PAC-driven interference.

Transcript

[Lauren Egan]

Can you grab one more thing? I'll come back up for you.

[Amica Insurance Announcer]

At Amica Insurance, we know you'll always find ways to look out for the people you love. And with Amica Life Insurance, we'll help build a plan to make sure you always can. We're here to help protect the life you've built.

[Daniel Biss]

Really?

[NetCredit Announcer]

I'm gonna have another one.

[Amica Insurance Announcer]

Ameca. Empathy is our best policy. Visit amica.com and get a quote. Today.

[NetCredit Announcer]

Netcredit is here to say yes because you're more than a credit score. Apply in minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day. Loans offered by NetCredit or lending partner banks and serviced by NetCredit. Applications subject to review and approval. Learn [e-mail] partners.

[Lauren Egan]

Hey guys, it's Lauren Egan here at the Bulwark. Earlier this month, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss won a crowded Democratic primary in Illinois's 9th congressional district. And he did this despite the fact that AIPAC spent millions of dollars in this race, some of that targeted at him. He and since his win, progressives have said that BIS could be the anti APAC template for the party going forward. So Mayor Biss is here with us today. He's going to walk us through this template and how he won this primary. Thank you so much for joining us. I really appreciate it.

[Daniel Biss]

Thanks, Laura. I'm really looking forward to it.

[Lauren Egan]

So for those that didn't follow this primary race closely, can you give us a quick recap, walk us through APAC's involvement over this race.

[Daniel Biss]

Yeah, so I'll try to condense this. It was a wild experience. 15 candidate primary. And basically since late summer, early fall, it became clear that AIPAC had a candidate in this race. I was clear that I was not prepared to sign on to no strings attached, blank check of military aid to Israel. That's their litmus test. And so they went all in for another candidate that started with raising money, sending fundraising emails, eventually traveling around the country with that candidate to raise funds directly into her campaign fund. But then as we got closer to the election, they set up a shell super pac, a brand new super PAC with a benign name. It was called Elect Chicago Women. And that super PAC started spending millions, both to profit, prop up their preferred candidate, and then eventually to attack me. All told, it seems like they spent something in excess of $7 million in the campaign. So basically it dwarfed the amount of money that everybody else was able to spend. But we made a decision pretty early on that we were going to make this the issue we were going to lay the groundwork to explain what APAC was doing, who they were, right? So to say, hey, this is money from AIPAC and Trump donors, because there's a lot of Trump donor money mixed up and all that. Second, why they were doing it. They were doing this because they want to install a person who would sign off on a blank check of no strings attached military aid to the Netanyahu government, no matter what they do in Gaza or the West Bank. And then number three, critically, to say, hey, listen, they're trying to hide this from you, they're lying to you about it. And the reason is they know that you're not going to like it if you find out. And so here are the steps they're taking to shelter and mask and hide the money and essentially mislead the voters. And all three of those stories together really helped make it the issue. And then amazingly, by the time election day came, their preferred candidate was a distant third. And my predominant opponent on election day, the person who came in close second, was someone who is actually much more anti Israel than I am.

[Lauren Egan]

I want to get into your campaign strategy, but first I'm just curious what this felt like on a personal level for you. I know your mother's Israeli and you're the grandson of Holocaust survivors, so there's something that just a bit icky about AIPAC spending money against you in this way. Like what, what was going through your mind and how did that feel?

[Daniel Biss]

I appreciate the question. It felt awful. And part of it just felt awful because their attacks were really personal and really the implication was very much that I'm not supportive of the Jewish people. I don't care about anti Semitism, I don't care about the security of the Jewish people. All of which is wrong and pretty insulting. But there's actually something deeper that like really hurt. You know, to me, the core of Judaism is like an intellectual open mindedness, a pluralism, an appreciation of nuance and arguing back and forth and seeing others points of view. And their approach was so hardline. So my way or the highway, so there cannot be nuance. So you may not recognize the humanity of the Palestinian people, you may not be interested in justice for the Palestinian people. It just somehow it felt very un Jewish to me. And to see that approach, that, that really hard line black and white approach be characterized wrongly as the voice of the Jewish people, wrongly, in my opinion, is best for the safety of the Jewish people. I don't know. It's very alienating and just gross. Honestly.

[Lauren Egan]

Did you ever bring that up with folks at aipac? I mean, I assume that they approached the, your campaign at some point early on. Like, what were those early conversations? Like, was there any room to have this kind of conversation? Or, I mean, I assume no, given where things ended. But what was that like?

[Daniel Biss]

We talked a lot early on. It actually became an issue in the campaign because I, I began the campaign with a goal of getting them to stay out, and I talked to them for that reason. And then much later in the campaign, I was criticized for, you know, how dare you even talk to them and, and so forth. I don't, on a moral level, I don't have any qualms about talking to them. I think my job as a hopeful future member of Congress is to talk to a lot of people I disagree with. I do think that strategically it was a dumb idea because they did not operate in good faith and they just tried to weaponize the conversations against me. But, but, you know, I would just say that I took the position that, hey, guys, we're not going to agree on a lot of things, but at least there'll be somebody who can talk to. And they took the exact opposite position. This, Lauren, is really important. Their position was, no, Daniel, you are the most dangerous person possible because your Jewish identity, your connection to Israel, your background as a descendant of Holocaust survivors means we can't dismiss you. We can't. When you disagree with us, we can't just say, oh, that's some knee jerk anti Israel or anti Semitic person who can be dismissed. Instead, your arguments are going to have to be taken seriously. And the truth of the matter is I don't think that their position is defensible on the merits. Right. The sort of no strings attached, whatever Bibi wants, Bibi gets. Position is really hard to argue for. And so what they want to be able to do is to just kind of ignore or dismiss or silence people who disagree with them. And they're not going to be able to do that with me. And I think that's part of why they spent so much money to crush me, because they see someone like me as a more significant threat than someone who may disagree with them on more issues but is more easily kind of marginalized.

[Upwork Announcer]

Scaling a business takes the right expertise at the right time. Upwork helps growing teams quickly bring in specialized freelancers so you can move faster and take the business to the next level. Upwork helps grow your business by giving you fast access to specialized talent across 125 categories so you can fill skill gaps and launch projects faster and scale support up or down without committing to full time headcount. Upwork is a one stop platform to find, hire and pay expert freelancers across web and software development, data and analytics, marketing, business operations, and much, much more. You can browse profiles, review past work and get help scoping the role so you can hire with confidence and get started quickly with business. Plus, you can access the top 1% of talent on Upwork and with AI powered shortlisting, you'll get matched to the right freelancer in under six hours. No endless searching required. It's free to sign up and posting a job is super easy. You can visit Upwork.com right now to post your job for free. That's Upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's up w o r k.com upwork.com

[Lauren Egan]

that's fascinating because I mean, I've talked to some campaign strategists, some Democratic operatives over the past couple of weeks who've basically said that they really worry about this dynamic and that if AIPAC doesn't allow for good faith debate, good faith disagreements, that it's just going to kind of push people, voters, candidates into these more extreme positions and then all of a sudden we're going to kind of end up with this more like a strain of anti Semitism in the Democratic Party that maybe wasn't there a couple years ago. I'm curious what you think of that. And if you feel like there is this risk of, if you discredit honest good faith disagreements about the Israeli government, about Netanyahu, that you're just kind of inviting in some of this sort of more ugliness that could happen.

[Daniel Biss]

I couldn't agree more. And you know, we, I often, you know, notice that there's a much broader discourse within Israel, including much more robust left wing criticism of the horrors committed by this Israeli government than has really been allowed in this country. And that's a huge problem. And and by the way, anti Semitism is a really serious problem, one that I take deeply seriously and very personally. And at the same time there is plenty of disingenuous weaponization of fake antisemitism to silence political voices and achieve political objectives. And that is not only wrong, it's counterproductive. If you label someone who's not anti Semitic but has a legitimate political disagreement with you as an anti Semite, you're pushing them away and over time creating anti Semite Semites. And I would say that, you know, I really ran into this during the campaign where, yeah, you bet, I criticized aipac. I called them out again and again and again and again and criticized them and was told frequently, oh, you're just, you know, trying to silence Jews or you're using coded anti Semitic language. And not only is that untrue, but it's also. I was proud to be supported by J Street, another predominantly Jewish organization that has a different vision of what it means to be pro Israel. And so the idea that I was trying to silence pro Israel voices or marginalized Jewish voices in the political discourse is absurd. What I was doing is building a coalition of people who see the world the way I do, which, by the way, is the way most Jewish Americans see the world.

[Lauren Egan]

So I want to get into the actual campaign strategy a little bit. So APAC starts spending money in this race, and then I read in the New York Times that you and your team decide to pull the district on their feelings towards aipac. And I think it's worth pointing out that your district is more than 10% Jewish and has had Jewish representation for more than 60 years. So why did you guys decide to do this poll? And then what did you find out in this poll?

[Daniel Biss]

So I don't want to be pedantic, but just for the sake of getting this exactly right, the order was the other way around. We polled and made strategic decisions knowing that AIPAC would likely spend later, but way before they spent a dime.

[Lauren Egan]

So is this like, summer?

[Daniel Biss]

No, it's like fall. Like late fall.

[Lauren Egan]

Okay.

[Daniel Biss]

You know, like. Like maybe the very beginning of November, I think, is when we pulled. And the election was in March. And we felt like it was likely that AIPAC was going to come for us and that we had to make an argument that was directly taking on where the money was coming from and why. And so well in advance, we. We tested APAC on our poll. I was not expecting them to be popular, but I was not so sure how well known they would be. And I was surprised to learn their name ID was very high and they were toxically unpopular among those who knew them. And then starting then, not starting when APAC started spending against us, but starting way earlier, we just began laying the groundwork, putting out releases, laying markers, explaining to reporters, just saying, listen, this is coming. And as things got more and more intense, we started to basically take every opportunity we could to just point out what was going on. A poll comes out. We put out a statement saying, hey, AIPAC smear campaign is failing. A new campaign finance report comes out. We do immediate, detailed analysis and research and put out data about where the money is coming from. There's new developments in foreign policy or tragically, a war was started in Iran. We explain the connection between those decisions and the position that AIPAC has been taking. And so we just, we were totally relentless because we felt like we're going to be outspent by so much. We've got to make sure that voters understand what this is about, otherwise we're just going to get drowned out.

[Lauren Egan]

Was that hard to do? Because this money stuff is so secretive and that's obviously by design, it can be hard to follow. Some of the ads that they put out in these races aren't even about Israel to begin with. They're about ICE or some other hot button issue. It can be confusing, I think, for voters to follow. So was there something that you found to be particularly effective or was it just kind of that relentless messaging that sunk in?

[Daniel Biss]

First of all, I'll say that, yeah, you said something else really important I hadn't mentioned. They never say a word about Israel or Palestine or foreign policy at all. They raise all this money from people who want to make sure the member of Congress is going to support no strings attached military aid, but then they use it to talk about anything but that. And then they do it through these shell organizations. So it's really hard to even trace it. And, you know, I would say that there were a few different things that worked. One was again, just being unbelievably relentless, just talking about it again and again and again and again, and using every opportunity that arose, even if it required some bank shots to continue talking about it. Another was that we, you know, there's no nice way to say this, but the fact that it was so cloak and dagger, the fact that it was so ambiguous, meant that my opponent, who was benefiting from the support, had to keep on explaining it. And I actually think, you know, she probably made a mistake to continue trying to hide it instead of just coming clean. Because the fact that was so mysterious became an interesting story. We also made a decision to spend money talking about it. You know, our, we had it ran a TV ad that was about a pack and Trump donors and why they were supporting a candidate. And in a very, very limited resource environment, it's a tough call to, to use limited advertising space on that message. That sounds sort of procedural or in the weeds or whatever, but we just felt that we, we had to explain what was happening because from the electorate standpoint, a candidate who had been pretty quiet for most of the campaign all of a sudden is outspending everybody else three or four to one. And so is more visible three or four to one. And we had to say, hey, I know you're puzzled about why you're seeing all this. Here's where it's coming from. Here's why.

[Lauren Egan]

Don't pay attention as we get ahead. Look ahead to 2028 and even just to this November. What lessons do you want the Democratic Party to learn from your primary and how do you think that the national party should be thinking about its relationship with aipac?

[Daniel Biss]

Well, I think APAC is a really dangerous influence inside the Democratic Party. And I would say, like for example, I said earlier, I don't think that I did anything wrong by meeting with them, but it was a dumb idea. And I would recommend that candidates not meet with them because I don't think they can be trusted to operate in good faith. That's Number one. Number two, I think the role that these super PACs and I think, you know, AI is the same and crypto is the same. The fact that they are trying to play this outsized role in Democratic primaries by swamping the districts with money and then talking about anything but their issue, that is unbelievably dangerous. And I think we ought to renounce all of that activity across different issue areas. But I also think the only way for that to work within the Citizens United environment is just to tell the truth and to do it relentlessly and to do it fearlessly and to do it over a long period of time. Right. One thing about operating without as much money is you don't get to just swamp the district with money at the moment that you most want to. You've got to lay the groundwork. You've got to repeat your argument. You've got to continue explaining again and again and again. And I think what I would tell candidates is you are right now, if you're early in your campaign, you are hearing from advisors who are telling you that the only way you can get elected is if you get a pack either on your side or at least get them to stay neutral, and they're asking you to twist yourself up into completely incoherent pretzels to say enough of what they want to hear to get the target off of your back. And I would say just don't play that game. Understand what might be coming if you don't play that game. Don't be naive. But then be yourself. Explain to your constituents what you stand for. And I'm guessing if it's not where APAC is, it's probably where your constituents are on this issue right now. And then prepare your constituents for the fact that that because you are standing tall for your values and their values out of state, money is likely to come and attack you and make sure your constituents are ready to interpret that correctly when it happens.

[Lauren Egan]

Well, Mayor Bis, congrats on the win and I really appreciate you coming on the Bulwark and explaining this to all of us. Obviously, aipac, the conversation around it and its influence is not going anywhere anytime soon. So appreciate you being here and stay in touch.

[Daniel Biss]

Thanks so much. Really appreciate it.

[Amica Insurance Announcer]

At Amica Insurance, your time and peace of mind matter. Bundle your auto and home coverage with us and enjoy savings that make life a little easier. As a mutual insurance company, we're built for our customers. We prioritize your needs and are here for you when you need us. Amica empathy is our best policy. Visit ameca.com and get a quote today.

[Chumba Casino Announcer]

Ch Ch Chumba looking for excitement? Chumba Casino is here. Play anytime, play anywhere. Play on the train, Play at the store. Play at home. Play when you're bored. Play today for your chance to win and get daily bonuses when you log in. So what are you waiting for? Don't delay. Chumba Casino is free to play.

[Daniel Biss]

Experience social gameplay like never before.

[Amica Insurance Announcer]

Go to Chumba Casino right now to play hundreds of games including online slots, bingo, Slingo and more.

[Daniel Biss]

Live the chumba [e-mail] no purchase necessary

[Chumba Casino Announcer]

vgw group void where prohibited by law 21 terms and conditions apply.

[NetCredit Announcer]

Certified Plant Genius here. Most people see a busy plant shop, but I see a perfectly balanced ecosystem thanks to Genius from Global Payments Inventory tracked payments, seamless reviews in one place. Absolutely Genius. From sold out crowds worldwide to running this shop, Genius grows with you.

[Lauren Egan]

Your Monstera's potted healthy roots.

[NetCredit Announcer]

Strong growth just like this shop. Big league reliability for your business. That's genius.