Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Anti-Iran Deal Groups Better Funded Than Pro-Deal Groups By Nearly Five to One

Groups lobbying against the Iran nuclear deal have a massive financial advantage over pro-deal organizations.

Print Friendly

LobeLog

The Democratic Party has latched onto the message that critics of the Iran deal are spending big money over the next 60 days to kill the agreement in Congress. Last Wednesday, for example, House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) commented that, “I know there’s tens of millions of dollars lined up against the agreement.” And Obama, interviewed by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show last week, criticized “lobbyists” and “money” working against the deal.

Indeed, the operating budgets of groups opposing the deal are massive. I published a post last Tuesday totaling the 2013 budgets of eight of the most prominent groups dedicated to defeating the deal.

To recap: the combined 2013 budgets of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Anti-Defamation league, The Israel Project, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Zionist Organization of America, Republican Jewish Coalition, United Against Nuclear Iran, and Emergency Committee for Israel came to approximately $145 million, according to their publicly available tax filings.

But that figure by itself lacks context. So here’s a rundown of eight of the most important groups that are actively promoting the deal and their annual budgets in 2013:

Ploughshares Fund

2013 budget: $7,216,478

Pro-deal statement: “The global security foundation Ploughshares Fund hailed today’s Iran nuclear agreement as a groundbreaking triumph for U.S. diplomacy and security, strongly urging Congress to support this historic step to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb.”

J Street (and J Street Education Fund)

2013 budget: $7,117,701

Pro-deal statement: “J Street welcomes news of the agreement struck today by the United States and its international partners with Iran to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.”

MoveOn (and MoveOn Civic Action)

2013 budget: $5,614,211

Pro-deal statement: ““The diplomatic negotiations between the United States and five world powers have yielded a strong, verifiable deal with Iran. MoveOn members are going to fight like hell to defend it and to stop opponents from dragging the U.S. into yet another costly, deadly war of choice.”

Win Without War coalition (budget figure is for Center for International Policy, Win Without War’s c3 fiscal sponsor)

2013 budget: $4,839,769

Pro-deal statement: “This is a good deal and a historic opportunity to win without war. Unfortunately, Congressional opponents of ANY deal with Iran will stop at nothing to scuttle this agreement and put our nation on the path to yet another war in the Middle East. We have seen this movie before and we know how it ends. We will not stand idly by while those who pushed for war with Iraq try to push us into war with Iran.”

Friends Committee on National Legislation (and FCNL Education Fund)

2013 budget: $4,471,743

Pro-deal statement: :The Friends Committee on National Legislation welcomes the historic breakthrough between six powers and Iran, and calls on Congress to support this accord, which guards against another nuclear-armed nation and war in the Middle East.”

Americans for Peace Now

2013 budget: $1,996,386

Pro-deal statement: “We heartily congratulate President Obama and his P5+1 partners, and their indefatigable teams of expert negotiators, for the historic achievement announced today – an agreement that, when implemented, will verifiably roll back Iran’s nuclear program, limit Iran’s nuclear activities going forward, and prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. “

Arms Control Association:

2013 budget: $1,125,588

Pro-deal statement: “The agreement—known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—establishes a strong and effective formula for blocking all of the pathways by which Iran could acquire material for nuclear weapons and promptly detecting and deterring possible efforts by Iran to covertly pursue nuclear weapons in the future.”

National Iranian American Council (NIAC):

2013 budget: $895,242

Pro-deal statement: “The United States and Iran have turned the tide on decades of enmity and instead have secured a nuclear deal that promises a better and brighter future. Major world powers and Iran have sealed a final nuclear deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – and heralded the greatest diplomatic achievement of the new millennium.”

Of course, much like my list of anti-deal groups, this is a small selection of organizations devoting considerable resources to supporting the deal. But they are some of the best known, best funded, and most vocal groups working in this arena.

The combined 2013 budgets of the eight pro-deal groups came to $33,451,805, or less than one quarter of the combined budgets of the eight anti-deal groups.

That disparity may help explain why, despite ad buys by J Street and other groups supporting the deal, they are likely to be overwhelmed. The opposition is already buying sponsored tweets, running Internet banner ads, blanketing the airwaves with television and radio commercials, printing full-page newspaper ads, and organizing expensive rallies in Times Square.

And those bigger budgets will, no doubt, be put to use over the course of the deal’s 60-day congressional review, to try and shift public opinion. According to a Cato Institute/YouGov pollreleased last Monday, 58% of Americans support the deal, while 40% oppose it. It’s safe to predict that tens of millions of dollars will be spent over the next two months to reverse those numbers.

Of course, these budgets of both the pro- and anti-deal groups have been devoted primarily to basic day-to-day operations and weren’t all spent on lobbying or campaigning on Iran-related activity (NIAC excepted). And they do not take account of extraordinary funding for the specific goal of persuading Congress to reject or support the Iran deal (which, in any event, didn’t exist in 2013). No doubt, huge sums are now being raised, as this is being written, for those specific purposes. Indeed, J Street has announced that it has raised $2 million from donors to support its campaign in support of the agreement. But that, of course, is only a fraction of the $20-40 million that AIPAC’s new spin-off, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, is expected to spend on advertising and other efforts over the next two months.

Indeed, although the nearly 5:1 ratio in the 2013 budgets of the anti-deal groups versus those of the pro-deal organizations reveals the disparity in the financial resources of the two forces, it almost certainly understates—and by a considerable degree—the massive funding advantages the opposition will enjoy over the next 60 days.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share