Which specific AIPAC-affiliated political committees have given to MTG and in which election cycles?

1. What the public record shows about “AIPAC‑affiliated” committees

OpenSecrets and investigative reporting identify a small set of entities consistently described as AIPAC’s political vehicles: AIPAC PAC (the group’s direct PAC), the United Democracy Project (a super PAC), and other allied organizations such as the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF) or outside groups that coordinate with AIPAC’s agenda; these are the committees cited when reporters and watchdogs quantify AIPAC’s election spending ^{[2] [4] [3]}.

2. Cycle totals — scale, not candidate‑by‑candidate detail

Reporting and OpenSecrets give cycle‑level totals: Pro‑Israel PACs gave $5,428,588 to federal candidates in 2024 (industry summary); AIPAC and affiliated PACs “poured nearly $50 million” into contributions and independent expenditures in the 2022 cycle, and the United Democracy Project spent more than $26 million in 2022 on independent expenditures ^{[1] [2]}. These numbers show scale but are not a substitute for line‑item FEC tables linking named committees to MTG across cycles ^{[1] [2]}.

3. What available sources say about donations TO MTG specifically

Available sources in the provided set do not list a line‑by‑line record of which named AIPAC‑affiliated committees — if any — made direct contributions to Marjorie Taylor Greene in which election cycles. OpenSecrets and Track AIPAC provide databases to trace pro‑Israel money generally and candidate pages, but the provided snippets do not include an entry showing AIPAC PAC, UDP, or affiliates giving to MTG in a specific cycle ^{[5] [1] [6]}. Therefore, a definitive, sourced answer naming specific committees and cycles for MTG cannot be produced from the current corpus.

4. Why the gap exists — PACs, super PACs, and reporting limits

Journalistic and watchdog sources emphasize two practical reasons you’ll often find aggregate cycle totals instead of candidate‑specific attributions: super PACs like UDP spend primarily on independent expenditures rather than direct contributions to campaigns, so their spending appears in outside‑spending tables rather than candidate contribution lines; many databases report industry totals or group‑level spending before researchers compile candidate‑level attributions — meaning a cycle‑level headline (e.g., “AIPAC spent $44.8M”) doesn’t automatically translate into a named list of committees that directly gave to one member of Congress ^{[2] [1]}.

5. Competing perspectives in the sources

Pro‑AIPAC sources (AIPAC’s own site) emphasize direct support metrics — “we supported 361 candidates in 2024 with more than $53 million” — framing activity as bipartisan, candidate assistance ^{[3] [7]}. Critical outlets (Sludge, Common Dreams, Sludge/ReadsLudge reporting cited by others) emphasize the size and partisan targeting of AIPAC/UDP spending to unseat progressives and influence primaries ^{[8] [9] [2]}. Both perspectives are present in the source pool and neither, in these snippets, provides the specific MTG contribution ledger requested ^{[3] [8] [9] [2]}.

6. How to get the exact, auditable answer you asked for

To compile “which specific AIPAC‑affiliated political committees gave to MTG and in which cycles” you need the FEC‑linked, candidate‑level contribution records or OpenSecrets candidate pages showing PAC donors. The sources here point to OpenSecrets and the FEC filings as the primary repositories for that granular data, but the provided excerpts did not include MTG’s donor breakdown by named AIPAC‑affiliated committees — so consult MTG’s OpenSecrets candidate profile or the FEC searchable contributor records for each cycle to get the exact committee names and dates ^{[5] [1]}.

Limitations: This analysis relies only on the provided sources; they give cycle totals and name the major AIPAC committees (AIPAC PAC, UDP, AIEF) but do not contain an explicit, sourced list tying those committees’ contributions to MTG in specific election cycles ^{[1] [2] [4]}.