Progressive Democrat Lisa McCormick has taken the 'No AIPAC Cash Pledge'

A political shockwave has rippled through the state of New Jersey, one that challenges the very foundations of establishment power and foreign influence in American politics.

Progressive Democrat Lisa McCormick, who once mounted a formidable challenge against the now-disgraced Senator Bob Menendez, has drawn a line in the sand.

She has taken the 'No AIPAC Cash Pledge,' a move widely interpreted as the first salvo in a coming primary battle against Senator Cory Booker.

In a stark declaration on social media, McCormick did not merely pledge refusal; she launched a direct indictment of Senator Booker's record, stating he "voted against resolutions sponsored by Bernie Sanders to stop the flow of weapons to war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he accused of killing Americans."

Her social media post pointed voters to a website advocating for the primary defeat of entrenched incumbents who, in their view, serve war and oligarchs over people.

This decision, set against the backdrop of New Jersey's significant Jewish population, is not merely political but profoundly moral for McCormick.

She frames it as a refusal to be complicit in the killing of children, a direct reference to the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. While acknowledging the historical necessity of Israel's founding after the Holocaust, McCormick draws a sharp distinction between the nation and its current leadership, aligning herself with Senator Bernie Sanders in condemning the policies of Prime Minister Netanyahu's government.

The organization she has pledged to shun, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is no minor player. For decades, AIPAC has wielded immense influence over U.S. foreign policy, a force that has now fully entered the electoral arena.

In 2022, it began spending millions, through its Super PAC, to target progressive Democrats—particularly women of color—who advocate for Palestinian rights and a ceasefire.

McCormick’s pledge is a direct rebuke of this financial machinery, which she describes as money "tainted by grave crimes against humanity."

This stand throws into sharp relief the record of her likely opponent. Senator Cory Booker has accepted nearly $900,000 from AIPAC and its allied networks.

He has been a consistent and vocal supporter of Israel, even co-sponsoring legislation criticized by free speech advocates.

His statement reaffirming that he "continue[s] to stand with Israel" following its large-scale unprovoked strike on Iran, stands in stark contrast to the silence noted by critics regarding the ongoing crisis in Gaza, where the death toll continues to mount in what experts project could reach a staggering 186,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children.

The silence, some argue, is purchased.

"The current humanitarian crisis in Gaza went unmentioned during Sen. Cory Booker's 25-hour protest," said Beyonce Thomas-Reynoso, a staff writer at Spectrum, the University at Buffalo's student publication. "While the United States praised Senator Booker for his camaraderie, his silence on the ongoing Gaza-Israel conflict speaks volumes — especially as he continues to benefit from lobbying ties, including money received from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)."

"Since the start of Senator Booker’s political career, he’s received approximately $877,763 in contributions from pro-Israel lobbying groups, so his silence on Gaza is no surprise," said Thomas-Reynoso. "Although AIPAC does not donate 'directly,' it bundles and channels money through its network of wealthy donors, including GOP megadonors with ties to President Donald Trump. That’s essentially how Booker ends up with nearly a million dollars in support while dodging accountability."

CODEPINK, a feminist grassroots organization working to end U.S. militarism, labeled Booker"one of AIPAC's most bought politicians."

The stakes of this brewing conflict are framed in the starkest terms. It is painted not as a debate about Israel's right to exist, but about the moral credibility of the United States itself. It is a question of whether this nation will, in the words of Senator Sanders, echoed by McCormick, abide by its own laws and international standards, or continue to fund a government accused of causing an "unprecedented humanitarian disaster."

As this political drama unfolds, the memory of a previous New Jersey senator, Menendez, lingers. His 2014 Freudian slip at an AIPAC podium, declaring he was "honored to bank" those he stood with, now sounds to some less like a gaffe and more like a candid admission.

The question for New Jersey voters, and for the nation watching, is whether they will honor a candidate who refuses such banking, or continue to support one who has built a political treasury upon it. The battle lines are drawn.