Outside Group Spending Is Overwhelming Democratic Primaries

A political ad bonanza funded by some of America’s wealthiest and most controversial special interest groups has swamped four Democratic House primaries in the Chicago area, with the potential to determine who wins in tight, crowded races.

Some Democrats are outraged at what they consider the unfair attempt to influence the party’s political priorities — and are worried that the spending explosion ahead of Illinois’ Tuesday primary could become a new normal nationwide.

“Illinois is a big blaring alarm for Democrats across the country about what’s happening,” said Ezra Levin, co-founder of the liberal grassroots group Indivisible. “This is about whether we have a party that is able to stand up to concentrated corporate interests or not.”

The spending in a quartet of open, blue-seat Illinois primaries — in the 2nd, 7th, 8th and 9th congressional districts — has stunned even veteran strategists, who say its scale is unprecedented.

Outside interest groups have spent over $21.6 million on television, radio and digital advertisements across the four races, according to AdImpact data. All Democratic candidates in these primaries have spent a combined roughly $13.1 million on ads, or about 40% less than the outside groups.

The spending has come from super PACs connected to artificial intelligence companies, the crypto industry and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Critics allege that three other newly formed groups spending big money across three of the races are mere fronts for AIPAC, although their funding sources have yet to be made public.

When including all spending, including direct mail, text messaging and media production costs, the outside groups have spent at least $26.8 million in the four races, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission records.

The spending surge has prompted a fierce pushback in the districts, including an uncommon inter-primary press conference from four of the candidates whose campaigns were put at risk by the spending. But Democrats warn the spending has unquestionably affected voters, even threatening to reduce the candidates’ campaigns to ancillary players in their own races.

“It’s a problem for the party because you have these outside groups essentially trying to determine which Democrats are allowed to run for Congress,” former Rep. Tom Malinowski told NOTUS.

Malinowski himself was the target of nearly $2 million in spending from an AIPAC-backed super PAC in a February special election, an ad blitz credited with sinking his attempt to return to Congress. Democrats worry other races, especially a handful of competitive open-seat primaries in New York City, could be vulnerable to similar spending barrage.

“Primaries are more vulnerable to this kind of intervention because candidates generally don’t spend as much in primaries as in highly contested general elections in November,” Malinowski said.

Many of the ads that these groups are running glean over the policy priorities the groups ostensibly care about, like the conflict in Gaza or the regulation of cryptocurrency. Instead, the campaign materials these groups spend tens of millions to promote focus on issues with broader popularity among Democratic voters.

Democrats in Chicago also widely believe that the source of the funding is being obfuscated in three of the districts.

Three groups — Affordable Chicago Now, Elect Democratic Women, and Chicago Progressive Partnership — have spent more than $10 million combined in the 2nd, 8th and 9th Districts. Evanston Now reported in February that the groups shared a vendor with United Democracy Project, which is AIPAC’s official super PAC. Because of campaign finance reporting rules with the FEC, how the trio of super PACs is being funded won’t become public record until after Tuesday’s primary. United Democracy is spending in one race, according to AdImpact, in the 7th District.

Officials with the United Democracy Project did not respond to a request for comment. But AIPAC’s potential involvement hasn’t gone unnoticed among national Democrats, some of whom have sought to curb the group’s influence among Democrats.

“Anyone who cares about the future of the Democratic Party should be outraged about what AIPAC is doing in Chicago,” Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told NOTUS in a statement. “Democratic primary voters are rightly disgusted by MAGA billionaires meddling in our elections to prop up Benjamin Netanyahu’s regime, and when we can get the word out about where this money is coming from progressives can win these races.”

The AI industry is also now trying to exert influence over primaries in both parties, as its priorities grow out-of-step with those of the Democratic Party.

A spokesperson for Leading the Future, an AI-backed super PAC, told NOTUS they will continue to be involved in Democratic primaries.

“We’re keeping a watchful eye on every primary, regardless of party affiliation, to see if there’s opportunities to support lawmakers who want to do work on [federal AI regulation] when they come to Congress,” he said.

Opposing factions of the AI industry are major spenders in this year’s elections. Public First, a super PAC network that has received $20 million from AI giant Anthropic, has spent over $600,000 to help elect New York Assemblyman Alex Bores to New York’s 12th District. Bores is the co-author of one of the first AI safety bills to be enacted at the state level.

Leading the Future has contributed roughly $2 million against Bores, an effort by the group to reportedly make an example out of him and stop efforts to regulate the AI industry in Congress.

Democratic strategists say that the primaries in Chicago and across the country this year might be especially vulnerable to big-spending outside groups, even compared to past years, because the races have attracted so many candidates.

In Chicago’s 9th district, for example, 15 Democratic candidates are running to replace retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Even affecting a small percentage of voters in that race can sway the result.

It’s why some groups involved in Democratic primaries with fewer financial resources say they feel outgunned in the primaries.

“There is a lot to be disheartened about with how these primaries are going,” said Tali deGroot, vice president of political and digital strategy at J Street, which advocates for a diplomatic solution to conflict between Gaza and Israel. “I field calls all the time from candidates who say, ‘Can you do anything? They’re dropping millions of dollars against me.’”

But deGroot, whose group is backing Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss in the 9th District race, added that she and other Democratic organizations are hopeful that the spending could still backfire. In the New Jersey special election, for instance, AIPAC’s spending helped defeat Malinowski but failed to get the group’s preferred candidate the victory, leading instead to a win for a progressive challenger.

“We cannot counter their Republican billionaire donors dollar for dollar, but as we saw in New Jersey, AIPAC’s tremendous spending doesn’t guarantee their intended outcome,” deGroot said. “We’re optimistic that voters will see through these dark money PACs and support candidates who stand up for the pro-peace values shared by a majority of Democratic voters.”

So far, candidates like Bores of New York and Biss and Junaid Ahmed of Illinois are aggressively highlighting the money opposing their campaigns coming from donors who support Trump.

“My advice to all of the candidates is to go directly at the issue, talk about it every single day, to every single reporter, because it is toxic and it can sink your opponent. And no amount of money can help them,” Jake Lewis, who advises Biss and Robert Peters in Illinois’ 2nd District.

For Malinowski, insulating Democratic primaries from outside group’s influence is going to take a collective effort.

“If the party were to collectively say to these groups that they can go fuck themselves if they’re going to keep doing this and that the party will have nothing to do with them, it would have a considerable impact,” Malinowski said. “Democrats can collectively deny these groups the bipartisan identity that they very much want to retain and force them to come out as part of the MAGA movement which is what I think they are.”