Representative Seth Moulton, currently competing against Senator Ed Markey for the Democratic nomination in Massachusetts, made headlines in mid-October by announcing he would no longer accept contributions from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In a bold statement, Moulton declared, “I am returning AIPAC’s donations and refusing to accept any donations or support from them.”
While the Moulton campaign did not disclose the total amount he has received from AIPAC, a campaign spokesperson confirmed they would return $35,000, a figure also reported by the Harvard Crimson. However, Federal Election Commission records indicate that since AIPAC established its political action committee, Moulton has actually accepted over $84,000 from the organization.
AIPAC spokesman Marshall Wittman did not verify the amounts attributed to Moulton, and inquiries to Moulton’s finance director, Jeff Bussgang, went unanswered. Notably, AIPAC had prominently backed Moulton in his 2024 race and intended to support him in his 2026 Senate primary against Markey. Of the funds, $15,000 was given directly from AIPAC—$5,000 for the current year and $10,000 in the previous campaign cycle—with over $69,000 coming from individual donors earmarked via AIPAC.
Moulton has voiced his objections toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, particularly criticizing its actions during the ongoing conflict with Hamas in Gaza. Despite accepting contributions from AIPAC during this time, he has also publicly called for a ceasefire and condemned Netanyahu’s methods as “brutalist” and contrary to both Israel’s interests and “basic human decency.”
In the face of criticism, AIPAC has maintained a different narrative, highlighting Israel’s efforts to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza despite ongoing hostilities from Hamas.
This separation from AIPAC is not Moulton’s only stance diverging from mainstream Democrats. Another Massachusetts Congressman, Jake Auchincloss, recently expressed concern about the party’s reception of candidates like Graham Platner, who faced backlash due to past associations with a Nazi symbol. Moulton’s response was more supportive, urging a debate around new leadership within the party and encouraging Platner’s candidacy while acknowledging the controversy surrounding his tattoo.
Moulton’s commitment to returning AIPAC’s funds marks a significant shift in his campaign strategy, underlining a broader conversation within the Democratic Party about its future direction and the influences of various interest groups. This moment could signify a growing movement towards greater accountability and transparency in campaign financing.