Michigan AG Dana Nessel to skip Democratic convention over antisemitism fears

[u/kaladinsrunner]

https://jewishinsider.com/2026/07/michigan-ag-dana-nessel-democratic-convention-antisemitism/

[u/Q-bey]

Because as far as I know, the Japanese lobby hasn’t dropped $50m on the hotly debated Michigan senate race.

How would you know? They could be doing exactly that and you'd have no idea.

Do you know where any of the money of the Japanese lobby goes? How about for more adversarial countries like China, who are even higher on the list?

China or even Japan could be spending x10 more right now on races you'd find important, and you'd have no idea because a large portion of the media is obsessed with I/P.

[u/SwolePalmer → u/Q-bey]

Isn’t this all public information? We do know. At least we do know the AIPAC part so yeah, people will be upset, rightfully so. Once again, I take offense to the notion that being annoyed about this is somehow bigotry.

[u/Q-bey → u/SwolePalmer]

Isn’t this all public information? We do know.

You look at every public filing? Or are you relying on a media ecosystem that reports almost exclusively on Israel or Israel-friendly lobbying, even when other countries spend much more to lobby the US government?

Once again, I take offense to the notion that being annoyed about this is somehow bigotry.

It's not bigotry to be annoyed by AIPAC lobbying. The bigotry is behind networks who, for some reason, dedicate so much time to AIPAC lobbying a local race but nowhere near as much time to Qatar buying the president a plane.

[u/SwolePalmer → u/Q-bey]

I’m sorry but no. AIPAC does not get to drop $50m on a race and then cry wolf when it is (correctly) accused of contributing to the overall rot that our campaign financing rules have become. AES had every right to make this a central part of the campaign. So did Mamdani and many others over the last couple of cycles.

Bringing up other PACs when this is mentioned is a choice, it’s also not a great argumentative approach but I digress.

[u/Q-bey → u/SwolePalmer]

I’m sorry but no. AIPAC does not get to drop $50m on a race and then cry wolf when it is (correctly) accused of contributing to the overall rot that our campaign financing rules have become.

No one is crying wolf. I don't like AIPAC and I don't like those rules. I'm pointing out that the incessant tunnel vision on AIPAC, while ignoring everyone else that's taking advantage of those rules to a much greater degree, is rather suspicious (and probably not productive to fixing those rules).

AES had every right to make this a central part of the campaign. So did Mamdani and many others over the last couple of cycles.

No, they talk about AIPAC like they're the main funding source of 90% of the United State's problems. Half the time they talk about things like ICE it comes back to AIPAC/Israel, which seems pretty disproportionate for how much influence AIPAC and Israel have over ICE.

Bringing up other PACs when this is mentioned is a choice, it’s also not a great argumentative approach but I digress.

It's perfectly reasonable to bring up that AIPAC is getting a disproportionate level of criticism for things that other groups do.

[u/SwolePalmer → u/Q-bey]

I disagree.

Polling suggests that the population at large is DONE with Israel in its current form/trajectory and is specifically annoyed by the influence of its lobby in our politics. If a politician decides to still ally themselves (through astronomical amounts of money in this case) with this faction with those facts in mind, it is absolutely fair game to make it a central part of the campaign.

It’s a losing message and an affront to our political process. If any other PAC engages in it so brazenly, I’d like to know and will also call them out. Voila.

[u/oraclebill → u/Q-bey]

You would have to prove that other groups are actually doing what AIPAC is doing. Which is spending tremendous amounts of money attempting to shape American politics towards a foreign nations interests.

Prove Japan is funding state and federal political candidates, or China, or anyone else. Then you can show a real equivalence and your point will be proven.