Newsstand
Foreign Influence Compared

But what about
China? Qatar?

It's the line every defender of AIPAC reaches for. So let's look at the receipts side by side. Different countries run different influence operations. Only one bought a sitting Congressman this month — and bragged about it.

01 · The comparison

Five countries, one column that matters.

Israel (AIPAC, UDP, DMFI)
Super-PAC IE + direct PAC donations + bundled bundlers + AIPAC PAC + UDP + DMFI
$30M+ per race, 2026
Yes
4
Bipartisan supermajority
Russia
Internet Research Agency social-media ads + bots; no PAC apparatus
~$100K (Facebook ads, 2016)
No
0
None
Qatar
FARA-registered lobbying + university funding (Brookings, GU Qatar); no election interference
$0 PAC spending
No
0
Targets, not defenders
Saudi Arabia
Think-tank funding (Atlantic Council, MEI) + PR firms + LIV Golf; no PAC defeats
$0 PAC spending
No
0
None
China
Confucius Institutes (mostly closed by 2023) + TikTok + student visas; no election PAC
$0 PAC spending
No
0
None

“Election PAC spending” measures money spent through American PACs and super PACs to influence the outcome of US federal elections. It excludes lobbying disclosed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), think-tank funding, and university gifts — those are different operations measured separately. They are also legal. Buying a primary to remove a sitting Congressman for foreign-policy heterodoxy is also legal — but it's a different kind of operation, and only one country's lobby is running it at scale.

02 · The receipts

Sources, by country.

03 · Why this matters

All foreign influence is not the same kind of influence.

Russia ran a social-media operation in 2016. Qatar funds think tanks. China runs Confucius Institutes. Saudi Arabia hires PR firms. These are real operations. None of them currently spend tens of millions of dollars through American super PACs to remove sitting members of Congress for foreign-policy heterodoxy.

One country's lobby does. It just did. Twice this month, in Kentucky and Georgia. And its own official account's response was: “Our community was proud to help.”

“But what about China?” is not a counter-argument. It's a category error. The categories aren't the same. The scale isn't the same. The brazenness isn't the same. Saying so isn't bigotry; it's arithmetic.

The clean response when someone asks “what about China?”

“You're right that China runs influence operations. Show me where China spent $30 million through an American super PAC to defeat a sitting US Congressman this month and openly tweeted that they were proud of it. When you can't — that's the difference.”

Now go read the receipts, defend the coalition, and sign the pledge.