Harvard study: AIPAC makes US act against own interests

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

Government as Regulator of the Electoral Process: Lobbying.— Inasmuch as legislators may be greatly dependent upon representations made to them and information supplied to them by interested parties, legislators may desire to know what the real interests of those parties are, what groups or persons they represent, and other such information. But everyone is constitutionally entitled to write his congressman or his state legislator, to encourage others to write or otherwise contact legislators, and to make speeches and publish articles designed to influence legislators. Conflict is inherent. In the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act,171 Congress by broadly phrased and ambiguous language seemed to require detailed reporting and registration by all persons who solicited, received, or expended funds for purposes of lobbying, that is to influence congressional action directly or indirectly. In United States v. Harriss,172 the Court, stating that it was construing the Act to avoid constitutional doubts,173 interpreted covered lobbying as meaning only direct attempts to influence legislation through direct communication with members of Congress.174 So construed, the Act was constitutional; Congress had “merely provided for a modicum of information from those who for hire attempt to influence legislation or who collect or spend funds for that purpose,” and this was simply a measure of “self–protection.”175

Other statutes and governmental programs affect lobbying and lobbying activities. It is not impermissible for the Federal Government to deny a business expense tax deduction for money spent to defeat legislation which would adversely affect one’s business.176 But the antitrust laws may not be applied to a concert of business enterprises that have joined to lobby the legislative branch to pass and the executive branch to enforce laws which would have a detrimental effect upon competitors, even if the lobbying was conducted unethically.177 On the other hand, allegations that competitors combined to harass and deter others from having free and unlimited access to agencies and courts by resisting before those bodies all petitions of competitors for purposes of injury to competition are sufficient to implicate antitrust principles.178
____________________________________________

Footnotes

171 Ch. 753, 60 812, 839 (1946), 2 U.S.C. §§ 261 – 70.

172 347 U.S. 612 (1954) .

173 Id. at 623.

174 Id. at 617–624.

175 Id. at 625. Justices Douglas, Black, and Jackson dissented. Id. at 628, 633. They thought the Court’s interpretation too narrow and would have struck the statute down as being too broad and too vague, but would not have denied Congress the power to enact narrow legislation to get at the substantial evils of the situation. See also United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953) .

176 Cammarano v. United States, 358 U.S. 498 (1959) .

177 Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) . See also UMW v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 669–71 (1965) .

178 California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) . Justices Stewart and Brennan thought that joining to induce administrative and judicial action was as protected as the concert in Noerr but concurred in the result because the complaint could be read as alleging that defendants sought to forestall access to agencies and courts by plaintiffs. Id. at 516.

This study of the U.S.-Israel relationship and the efforts of the pro-Israel community in the United States could not be more wrong. Israel, our lone Democratic ally in the Middle East, enjoys a strong relationship with America because it embodies our shared values of freedom and democracy.

The pro-Israel lobby in Washington exists to refute studies as these and other misinformed propaganda which erroneously contends that Israel's success, either in diplomacy, economics or politics, is due to anything other than the drive and determination of its own people. Israel has managed to stay on the map because its citizens constantly work for its betterment. It is wrong to simplify their decades of achievements, going far before its founding in 1948, to the influence of a lobby. This is a discredit not only to the Israeli people, but to the democratic principles which underlie our two societies.

As a Jewish American, I have always been a strong supporter of Israel. But as a Member of Congress, particularly one who sits on the House International Relations Committee, I have heard nearly 18 years of testimony, arguments and evidence to solidify my belief in the U.S.-Israel relationship. And, I am proud to stand with AIPAC and all Americans who support Israel to say to the world that it is only through peace with the Jewish state that the problems of the region will be solved.

"Everybody loves a doctor
That's why I'm in Love With Me
Call Me Doctor, Call Me Doctor

Whenever you address me
Don't forget the PhD
Call Me Doctor, Call me Doctor

...an audience predominantly Arab and sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

"decisive" role in fomenting the Iraq war

What Is The Lobby?

We use “the Lobby as a convenient short hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. Our use of this term is not meant to suggest that the Lobby is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues.

The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests. Their activities go beyond merely voting for candidates who are pro-Israel to include letter-writing, financial contributions, and supporting pro-Israel organizations. But not all Jewish-Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 percent of Jewish-Americans said they were either “not very” or “not at all” emotionally attached to Israel.60

Jewish-Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key organizations in the Lobby, like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (CPMJO), are run by hardliners who generally supported the expansionist policies of Israel’s Likud Party, including its hostility to the Oslo Peace Process. The bulk of U.S. Jewry, on the other hand, is more favorably disposed to making concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups—such as Jewish Voice for Peace—strongly advocate such steps.61 Despite these differences, moderates and hardliners both support steadfast U.S. support for Israel.

Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so that the former can maximize their influence in the United States. As one activist with a major Jewish organization wrote, “it is routine for us to say: ‘This is our policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the Israelis think.’ We as a community do it all the time.” 62 There is also a strong norm against criticizing Israeli policy, and Jewish-American leaders rarely support putting pressure on Israel. Thus, Edgar Bronfman Sr., the president of the World Jewish Congress, was accused of “perfidy” when he wrote a letter to President Bush in mid-2003 urging Bush to pressure Israel to curb construction of its controversial “security fence.” 63 Critics declared that, “It would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel.”

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf