FEC Filings Reveal $104.5M Surge Correlates to Foreign Aid Committee Votes
Record-breaking disbursements from AIPAC-linked entities in 2025 directly preceded a 94% approval rate for an $18.2 billion arms transfer package. New data shows that 22 of the top 25 funding recipients hold strategic seats on the committees overseeing federal spending and foreign policy.
A $104.5 million spending surge by AIPAC’s Super PAC effectively pre-purchased a 94% 'Yes' vote on an $18.2 billion arms package by targeting key committee members.
Federal Election Commission (FEC) year-end filings dated January 30, 2026, show the United Democracy Project (UDP) and AIPAC-affiliated entities disbursed $104.5 million during the 2025 calendar year. This capital was not distributed evenly. Instead, it was concentrated on the House Foreign Affairs and House Appropriations Committees. Of the top 25 recipients of UDP independent expenditures, 22 hold seats on these two committees, placing the money exactly where the decisions on military aid are made.
The correlation between these disbursements and legislative action is precise. During the 2026 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act—which authorized $18.2 billion in new arms transfers—the 'Yes' vote rate reached 94% among candidates who received more than $250,000 in UDP support. Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) reports further reveal that AIPAC held 114 private briefings with Appropriations staff in the 30 days leading up to the January 30 spending surge.
This is not merely a matter of supporting like-minded candidates; it is a matter of changing votes. Documentation indicates that specific funding surges occurred within 72 hours of representatives switching their public stances on arms export licenses. Based on the number of lawmakers who flipped from 'No' to 'Yes' since 2024, the calculated 'cost-per-vote' for the supplemental package stands at approximately $1.1 million per lawmaker. While mainstream outlets frame this $104.5 million as 'broad-based civic engagement,' the timeline suggests a specific legislative quid-pro-quo.
In the top 25 targeted districts, the influence of local voters has been mathematically marginalized. UDP spending in these regions exceeded the combined contributions of all local donors by a ratio of 8:1. Furthermore, 80% of minority-party leadership within the Foreign Affairs Committee now relies on UDP-linked donors for more than 40% of their total campaign war chests. This creates a regulatory capture where leadership is more accountable to a single-issue Super PAC than to their own party platform or constituents.
For the average citizen, this means the national budget is being steered by external capital rather than public need. As $18.2 billion is committed to long-term foreign military contracts with minimal floor debate, the available federal pool for domestic infrastructure, housing, and healthcare shrinks. When local donor voices are drowned out 8-to-1 by a national Super PAC, the primary process ceases to be a local referendum and becomes a commodity to be purchased by the highest bidder.
Summary
Record-breaking disbursements from AIPAC-linked entities in 2025 directly preceded a 94% approval rate for an $18.2 billion arms transfer package. New data shows that 22 of the top 25 funding recipients hold strategic seats on the committees overseeing federal spending and foreign policy.
⚡ Key Facts
- FEC filings show a record $104.5M disbursed by UDP and AIPAC-affiliated entities in 2025.
- 22 of the top 25 recipients sit on the House Foreign Affairs or House Appropriations Committees.
- The 'cost-per-vote' for the $18.2B arms package is estimated at $1.1M per flipped lawmaker.
- Lawmakers receiving over $250,000 in UDP support voted 'Yes' on the 2026 Supplemental Act at a 94% rate.
- In key districts, UDP spending outpaced all local donors combined by a ratio of 8:1.
- Funding spikes often occurred within 72 hours of representatives reversing their public positions on arms transfers.
Our Independence
This story was written by Gen Us - independent journalists exposing the networks of power that corporate media protects. No hedge fund owns us. No billionaire edits our headlines. We answer only to you, our readers.