Illinois
AIPAC faces test of its power in Illinois primary as Democrats debate future of Israel relationship
WASHINGTON — A crowded primary season in Illinois is shaping up as the next test for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful advocacy organization that’s generating fresh turmoil over the Democratic Party’s relationship to Israel and the role of undisclosed campaign cash in this year’s midterm elections.
AIPAC, which was founded decades ago to lobby for U.S. support for Israel, has reserved at least $1.9 million in advertisements through its super PAC in the race to replace Rep. Danny Davis, a veteran politician who is retiring. The organization hopes to boost Melissa Conyears-Ervin, the city treasurer in Chicago, to victory over a dozen other candidates in the March 17 primary.
Other organizations that critics believe are tied to AIPAC are also spending heavily in Illinois, a source of bitterness and recriminations in a state already known for its bare knuckled brand of politics.
The aggressive spending comes after AIPAC put almost $2 million into a recent Democratic primary for a special election in New Jersey, an effort that’s widely considered to have backfired. AIPAC targeted Tom Malinowski, a former congressman who narrowly lost to progressive candidate Analilia Mejia — who has been outspoken in criticism of Israel.
But AIPAC appears undaunted by the experience, despite an outpouring of criticism from across the political spectrum.
“We expect to be involved in dozens of races both in primaries and general elections this cycle,” said Patrick Dorton, a spokesman for AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC, the United Democracy Project, or UDP.
AIPAC has more urgently pursued its mission as Democratic skepticism and even hostility toward the U.S.-Israel relationship increases because of the war in Gaza, jeopardizing traditional bipartisan support for military assistance to a historic ally. But the group’s assertive interventions in this year’s primaries, which are expected to expand in the months to come, also risk further fracturing the party and eroding any remaining goodwill.
AIPAC has been dividing line in Illinois primary
Campaign finance laws involving super PACs make it nearly impossible to ascertain who is behind much of the money being spent in Illinois. Although UDP is open about its affiliation, recently created groups like Elect Chicago Women and Affordable Chicago Now haven’t yet been required to disclose the sources of their money.
Neither group is obligated to disclose its funding until after the Illinois’ primary. Critics suspect they’re conduits for AIPAC money, and AIPAC has declined to say whether there’s any connection.
UDP, Elect Chicago Women and Affordable Chicago Now are three of the top four spenders on advertisements in House races so far, with almost $11 million total, and the majority going to Illinois. Financial numbers are drawn from AdImpact, a nonpartisan ad-tracking service.
None of the organizations mention Israel in their campaign messaging, a strategy that AIPAC-affiliated groups have used in the past as well.
For example, the United Democracy Project assailed Malinowski in New Jersey as sympathetic to President Donald Trump’s deportation efforts, undermining him with liberal voters. In Illinois, it is promoting Conyears-Ervin to replace Davis in the 7th congressional district by saying she will fight to lower costs and protect healthcare.
The strategy has contributed to speculation and angst about AIPAC’s influence in politics. Supporters of Israel accuse critics of using antisemitic tropes about dual loyalty, and others say the focus on AIPAC is misplaced.
“I think the folks who are talking the most about AIPAC are seeking to demonize Israel and create a break in the U.S.-Israel relationship,” said Rep. Brad Schneider, a Democrat who represents Illinois’ 10th district.
“The problem is Citizens United and the decision to allow dark money,” said Schneider, the co-chair of the Congressional Jewish Caucus. “The problem is the rules. Let’s fix the rules.”
Candidates have been criticizing each other for their perceived willingness to accept help from AIPAC. Four progressive candidates vying for different Illinois congressional seats jointly condemned the organization’s role in the state’s primaries during a press conference in February. Another candidate is selling shirts on her website with anti-AIPAC messaging.
AIPAC has increased its campaign spending in recent years
Malinowski is still raw over his experience as AIPAC’s target in New Jersey, and he said that he won’t support any candidates backed by the organization this year. He described himself as pro-Israel even though he opposed unconditional assistance for the country, a stance that drew AIPAC’s ire.
“Obviously, we were going to talk about Israel and Gaza in the campaign because many voters would be asking questions about it,” Malinowski said. “But I wanted those discussions to be about the substance, not colored by baggage of endorsements from groups that are controversial now.”
AIPAC said in a statement that Mejia’s success in the primary was “an anticipated possibility,” suggesting they had no regrets that their role could have helped pave the way for a candidate who has described Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.
Although AIPAC has always been politically active, it began spending directly on campaigns during the 2022 midterms.
Since then, it has spent more than $221 million through its traditional PAC and its super PAC, according to Federal Election Commission filings between December 2021 and January 2026.
The super PAC has mostly focused on Democratic primaries. In the 2022 and 2024 cycles, UDP spent at least $1 million supporting or opposing 18 candidates, 16 of whom were Democrats. Many of those candidates were running in open races.
Traditional PACs are allowed to raise and donate up to $5,000 per candidate per election, and may coordinate directly with campaigns. Super PACs don’t have fundraising or spending limits but are not allowed to make direct or in-kind contributions to candidates nor coordinate communications.
In 2024, UDP’s biggest investments were made in support of centrist challengers to progressive incumbents. It spent more than $13 million in the 2024 Democratic primary in New York’s 16th District, in which current Rep. George Latimer defeated former Rep. Jamaal Bowman. It also spent $8.5 million opposing former Rep. Cori Bush, who lost her primary to Rep. Wesley Bell.
Illinois
Weather service assessing damage across Iowa, Illinois and Missouri
The National Weather Service has teams of storm surveryors in the field April 18 investigating several reports of severe storms and tornado touch downs across eastern Iowa, northwest Illinois and northeast Missouri.
According to the weather service’s website, windgusts of up to 60 to 70 mph along with teacup-sized hail and several tornadoes were reported April 17.
Many homes and outbuildings were damaged, trees were uprooted and power lines were downed in Lena, Illinois, where the most significant damage occurred, the site pointed out.
Very strong winds also were reported near Washington, Iowa, and Colmar, Illinois, where several outbuildings and grain bins were destroyed.
The weather service received reports of confirmed and possible tornadoes in the areas of Lena, Pecatonica, Shirland, Rockton, Roscoe and Capron.
The teams will be assessing damage this weekend into next week along with county emergency management teams to determine what types of storms occurred and their paths.
Dozens of power outages were reported, as well.
As of the afternoon of April 18, ComEd was reporting 85 active power outages across northern Illinois, down from 241 on April 17, and 6,751 customers affected, down from more than 18,000.
The bulk of those outages and the most customers impacted are concentrated in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties.
Illinois
5 tornadoes confirmed in Illinois from Friday’s storms
Freeze Watch
from MON 12:00 AM CDT until MON 9:00 AM CDT, Lake County, Kankakee County, La Salle County, DuPage County, Northern Will County, DeKalb County, Southern Will County, Kendall County, Southern Cook County, Northern Cook County, Grundy County, Eastern Will County, Kane County, McHenry County, Lake County, Newton County, Jasper County, Porter County
Illinois
‘Credit card chaos’? Financial institutions bet big on repeal of first-of-its-kind Illinois law
“Credit cards may not work for sales tax or tips starting July 1.”
By now, you’ve heard that claim, but whether it’s true depends on who you ask.
The ads — funded by the Electronic Payments Coalition of banks, credit unions and card companies — argue that Illinois lawmakers must repeal the state’s first-in-the-nation Interchange Fee Prohibition Act, slated to take effect July 1. That law prohibits financial institutions from charging “swipe,” or interchange, fees on the tax and tip portions of consumer bills and bans them from making up the fees elsewhere.
If it’s not repealed? “Credit card chaos” may ensue, the ads warn.
While the financial institutions are quick to cite a list of things that could hypothetically happen if the law isn’t repealed, it’s harder to pin down what’s being done and by who to comply with the law two years after it was signed.
“The global payment system is not set up to where any one party to a transaction can make this happen on their own,” Ashley Sharp, of the Illinois Credit Union Association said at a Capitol news conference Wednesday. “There are multiple parties to every electronic transaction.”
The financial institutions are adamant that the global payment system as it exists today can’t discern the difference between tax, tips and total, and it would need to be retooled at a heavy cost to banks, card companies, merchants, point-of-sale companies and more.
Instead of complying, they say, the card companies could decide to stop serving Illinois or drastically alter the way the consumer interacts with merchants at the point of sale.
An alternate reality
But as with all matters in Springfield, there’s another big-monied and powerful group on the other side of the issue. The Illinois Retail Merchants Association says the credit card companies already track all the information they need, and it’s a “complete fabrication” to say that it would take more than a mere coding change to implement the state law.
Take your restaurant receipt, for example.
“You have the subtotal, the sales tax, the tip, if it’s applicable, and then the grand total, right? All they have to do is move their fee from the grand total to the subtotal,” Rob Karr, president of IRMA, said.
While card networks operate in over 200 countries with as many different laws, they say the only information the card processors ask for in any of them is the grand total. The receipt example, they say, erroneously conflates the point of sale with the actual processing of payments.
In short, the two sides present starkly different realities — a muddying of the water that’s not uncommon at the Capitol.
But there is one concrete truth: The financial institutions have a lot to lose, and not just in Illinois.
The tax and tip prohibition would shave approximately 10% off the revenue that banks and credit unions receive from retailers via interchange fees — a transfer of wealth likely to number in the hundreds of millions. It would also create massive noncompliance fines.
And then there’s the issue of precedent. The banks challenged the law but lost in court. Absent a successful appeal, the remaining battlefields would be other state legislatures.
If the card companies implement Illinois’ law, they’d be providing a blueprint for states across the nation to emulate — driving potential revenue loss into the billions.
Thus far, Ben Jackson of the Illinois Bankers Association said, it hasn’t opened the floodgates, although some 30 states are considering similar action.
Still, it’s no wonder then, that the Electronic Payments Coalition has pulled out all the stops in its seven-figure ad campaign to repeal the law.
How we got here
To fully understand the ongoing slugfest between banks and retailers, you have to go back to May 2024.
But first, an explanation of interchange fees. Each time a shopper swipes their credit or debit card, it sets off a complicated string of payments between banks. The retailer’s bank pays an “interchange fee,” typically around 1% to 2% of the transaction cost, to the consumer’s bank. The fees include both a set amount and a percentage of the transaction, but the credit card companies, namely Visa and Mastercard, control how they’re calculated.
The financial institutions say interchange fees help fund credit card reward programs and security upgrades and provide compensation for bearing the risk of fraud. The hit to interchange revenue, Jackson said, would inevitably lessen reward program offerings. Sharp said credit unions, as not-for-profit cooperatives, use the revenue to offer lower rates to customers.
But the fees have long drawn the ire of retailers and small businesses, which sometimes pass the costs directly to consumers via a surcharge on bills.
It comes down to this: The retailers don’t think they should have to pay a fee on the tax and tip portion of a transaction that they don’t keep. And the financial institutions say if they’re handling those funds, they should be compensated for doing so via interchange fees.
As for the Illinois law’s passage, it was, as the ads claim, tucked into the budget two years ago, giving little time for the bankers et al to mount an opposition campaign.
Gov. JB Pritzker and lawmakers agreed to raise about $101 million in revenue to plug a budget hole by putting a $1,000 monthly cap on the “retailer’s exemption,” a tax break retailers claim for being the state’s de facto sales tax collectors.
But the retailers weren’t going to take that lying down, and IRMA successfully lobbied for the long-sought tax and tip exemption.
After the law passed, the financial institutions quickly sued.
To avoid uncertainty as the case played out, lawmakers delayed the measure’s effective date from July 1 last year to the same date this year.
U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall ultimately determined in February that Illinois is within its right to regulate the fees. She partially rejected a portion of the law that prohibited banks from sharing certain data, which the credit unions say creates different rules for different institutions and further uncertainty.
The case is now pending appeal, and the legislative process is starting anew.
This time, the financial institutions have mounted a dual front in the court of public opinion.
The cost of compliance
Karr estimated the prohibition would bring in “north of $200 million” for retailers — essentially letting them pocket that sum instead of transferring it to the banks. A study by the Electronic Payments Coalition pegged the number at $118 million, estimating that about 40% of the interchange windfall would go to the 40 largest retailers.
Even so, Karr said, the largest retailers are subject to the $1,000 monthly retailer exemption cap that accompanied the swipe fee ban, while smaller retailers don’t reach that mark. Add in their cut on reimbursed swipe fees, and it amounts to what Karr calls “the largest small business relief that Illinois has ever passed.”
But Jackson argued the cost of retailers complying could eat up any benefits for smaller retailers.
As for compliance, Kendall wrote in her February opinion that “It is an open question whether the transaction process could adapt to the impact of the IFPA in time.”
“The Interchange Fee Provision is indisputably disruptive, requiring additional investments, hires, and new procedures to replace the current process for authorizing and settling debit and credit card transactions,” she wrote.
The financial institutions argue it can’t all be done by July 1. Kendall said the parties involved know what’s required of them.
“But those procedural changes are the product of an ecosystem built by Payment Card Networks and financial institutions to facilitate consumer transactions,” she wrote. “And these entities understand the onus of IFPA compliance is on them.”
Per the coalition, compliance “would require coordination across the industry and regulators worldwide,” including with the International Organization for Standardization. It would also require more data collection, creating privacy concerns, they say.
Those global changes would require testing and certification of new equipment. Depending on their card companies or point-of-sale vendors, retailers may need to invest in new equipment, software and training.
Banks and credit unions may also have to add staff to process rebates under the law. It allows retailers or their processing companies to petition their financial institutions for reimbursement on fees charged on tax and tips within 180 days of a transaction.
If financial institutions don’t comply within 30 days, the law provides for civil penalties of $1,000 per each transaction — and hundreds of millions of these transactions happen annually.
So will that chaos come to fruition?
Instead of complying, according to the coalition’s literature, the card companies could just stop processing cards altogether in Illinois. They could also stop processing tax and tip portions or require two separate swipes for the subtotal and the tax and tip portion of bills.
Such claims aren’t uncommon in the legislature’s annual adjournment push.
Sports betting companies, for example, threatened to leave Illinois when the state raised its gambling taxes in the same budget cycle that yielded the interchange fee prohibition two years ago. Instead, they adapted, because Illinois has a lot of bettors — and there’s even more card users.
Karr accused the coalition of ulterior motives in their use of hypothetical language.
“There is no need for chaos,” he said. “The only chaos is if the credit card companies impose it themselves on their consumers.”
Ultimately, lawmakers will have to weigh how compelling the arguments are, if the courts don’t intervene first.
It’s possible that the 7th Circuit appellate court — or even the U.S. Supreme Court — gives the banks a win. But oral arguments are slated for May 13, meaning the appellate court might not rule by the time the law is slated to take effect.
Adding a new wrinkle on Wednesday, the federal office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a subset of the U.S. Treasury Department, appeared poised to issue an order preempting Illinois’ law. It hadn’t been published as of late Wednesday, making its impact unclear.
“While the office has failed to explain their reasoning or allow public review, it’s clear the goal is an end-run around the legal process after a judge recently upheld the law,” Karr said.
As for the legislative prospects, state Rep. Margaret Croke, D-Chicago, says she’s seen enough to be concerned. The Democratic nominee for comptroller is sponsoring a bill to fully repeal Illinois’ interchange fee prohibition.
But as of last week, she said she wasn’t planning to move it. Instead, she finds it more likely that lawmakers once again delay the law’s implementation.
“If this is a policy that the state of Illinois decides they’re going to want to have, then we need to make sure we’re doing it properly,” she said.
___
This story was originally published by Capitol News Illinois and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
-
Mississippi39 seconds agoMississippi Lottery Mississippi Match 5, Cash 3 results for April 19, 2026
-
Missouri7 minutes ago
Missouri Lottery Pick 3, Pick 4 winning numbers for April 19, 2026
-
Montana13 minutes ago
Montana Lottery Big Sky Bonus results for April 19, 2026
-
Nebraska19 minutes ago
Nebraska Lottery results: See winning numbers for Pick 3, Pick 5 on April 19, 2026
-
Nevada25 minutes agoArmed Robbery at the Tamarack Casino
-
New Hampshire31 minutes ago
NH Lottery Pick 3 Day, Pick 3 Evening winning numbers for April 19, 2026
-
New Jersey37 minutes ago
NJ Lottery Pick-3, Pick-4, Cash 5, Millionaire for Life winning numbers for Sunday, April 19
-
New Mexico43 minutes agoLos Alamos Public Schools Students Compete At 2026 New Mexico State Science & Engineering Fair