What do the US politicians gunning for SA have in common?

6 Apr 2025

To better understand why certain US congressmen are targeting SA, follow the money

https://youtu.be/rgtv1DXjWNw

On Wednesday, 2 April 2025, the latest attempt to punish the South African government was introduced in the US House of Representatives.

The proposed bill asks for a “full review of the bilateral relationship between the United States and South Africa”, as well as the identification of “South African government officials and ANC leaders eligible for the imposition of sanctions”.

Its rationale follows what is now well-trodden ground – Pretoria’s relationship with China, Pretoria’s relationship with Russia – with some new sprinkles: the cholera outbreaks of 2023 and 2024, as well as the appointment of Ebrahim Rasool as South Africa’s ambassador to the US.

But almost one-third of the entire bill is devoted to just one issue: Israel and South Africa’s decision to approach the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in opposition to its actions in Gaza.

Bill sponsored by Trump’s doctor

The new bill was sponsored by a Republican congressman from Texas, Ronny Jackson, who is best known for previously being Donald Trump’s doctor. It was Jackson who in 2018 administered a “cognitive test” to Trump and subsequently declared him to have achieved a perfect score. Jackson was also demoted by the US Navy because of inappropriate conduct, including allegedly making “sexual and denigrating statements” about a female subordinate.

Jackson is not a high-ranking congressman, and his proposed legislation is unlikely to find much purchase. But the news is interesting nonetheless because it follows what now looks like an established pattern when it comes to the congressmen pushing hardest for sanctions on South Africa: the source of their funding.

In February 2025, four US congressmen wrote to President Donald Trump urging him to take action against South Africa: specifically, asking Trump to scrap Agoa, the trade agreement which gives South African exporters preferential access to US markets.

The letter was aggressively worded, accusing the ANC of running an “ethno-nationalist gangster regime”. It cited a number of offences on the part of the South African government, some somewhat legitimate – its failure to address the gender-based violence problem, for instance – and some less so, such as its supposedly destructive land reform programme.

Again, however, its major focus seemed to be South Africa’s “vendetta against the state of Israel”. It termed the ICJ approach as “baseless”, and accused the ANC government of acting as “Hamas propagandists” for decades.

The four Congressmen who were signatories to the letter were all Republicans: Andy Ogles (Tennessee), Tom Tiffany (Wisconsin), Joe Wilson (South Carolina) and Don Bacon (Nebraska). In addition to all being Maga fans, these men have something in common: the source of their funding.

US political funding an unrestricted Wild West

Most countries impose restrictions on the amount of money that can be legally donated to a single candidate or campaign because of the potential for financial muscle to skew political outcomes. In South Africa, for instance, you cannot donate more than R15-million to one party in a single year.

This is not the case in the US, owing to a highly controversial 2010 Supreme Court judgment known as the Citizens United ruling, which effectively removed all restrictions on how much money corporations and special interest groups can spend on elections.

Around 90% of US electoral races are simply won by whoever spends the most money.

The website Open Secrets records the financial donations made to US senators or members of the House of Representatives – and it reveals a commonality in the campaign financing of the politicians pushing an anti-South African agenda.

Pro-Israel lobby group funds them all

Congressman Bacon received the highest amount of money in the most recent financial year for which there are records from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac): almost $700,000, close to R13-million.

Congressman Wilson similarly received his biggest donation in the last year from Aipac: $126,350 or about R2.3-million.

Jackson, the man responsible for the new proposed legislation sanctioning the ANC officials, also has Aipac as his biggest donor, receiving $29,646 (R566, 500).

Tiffany, one of the congressmen who wrote to Trump in February, at first glance appears to buck the trend: his most recent major donor was an entity called Incredible Bank. But in the previous funding cycle, his biggest donor was Aipac, to the tune of almost $34,000, or around R626,000.

The final letter signatory, Ogles, does not have Aipac listed as a donor for the last campaign cycle, and Open Secrets doesn’t have records for his previous round of financing. Aipac itself, however, lists Ogles on its own website as one of the candidates it financially supports, so it is fair to assume that Ogles has received Aipac money at some point.

Of the four congressmen who signed the letter calling for South Africa to face punitive action,three had the same biggest donor at some point since 2022: Aipac. The fourth has also received funding from Aipac, while the congressman introducing new legislation calling for sanctions also receives the majority of his money from Aipac.

What is Aipac?

Aipac funds hundreds of American politicians: in 2024, 361 candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties were funded, to the tune of more than $53-million.

Aipac is quite open about the fact that it is a single-issue funding group: it says on its website that it is “transparently tying contributions to candidates’ support for Israel”.

It further states: “We base our support only on a candidate’s support for the US-Israel relationship.”

In other words, there is a major financial incentive – particularly for lower-profile political candidates – to be outspoken in support of Israel and in opposition to Israel’s perceived enemies. Support Israel, and you can expect Aipac to fund your campaign.

Since most of the congressmen intent on punishing South Africa currently have had Aipac as their single-biggest donor at some point since 2022, they may have a proportionately bigger reason to push hard on pro-Israel policies than their colleagues who are less dependent on this funding source.

None of this is improper in terms of US politics, where lobby groups set up fundraising vehicles for all manner of issues and use them to channel money to politicians. It does mean, however, that there is a very real financial incentive for politicians to push certain positions – even when they involve countries on the other side of the world. DM

If you would like to comment on this article please send an email to [email protected]

Categories:

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...

South Africa

Bill sponsored by Trump’s doctor

US political funding an unrestricted Wild West

Pro-Israel lobby group funds them all

What is Aipac?