Khuram Zaman and "Alliance for Accountability": The FAQ of PAC

I promised a “part two” of my series on political participation by American Muslims, why it’s been an unmitigated disaster, and what we may be able to do to fix the problem. However, that will have to wait a little while until I address a portion of what many American Muslim activists now believe is vital: the Political Action Committee (PAC) and what claims to be the first mover in a Muslim “Super PAC.”

There is immense financial and spiritual danger in the direction that we are heading. Many of the same people who have failed the Muslim community for decades are likely going to try the same strategy but with more donated money.

Worse still, the ethically challenged can easily profit from the emotional toll the Gaza genocide has taken on the Muslim community. One “Hybrid PAC” that has received some attention is the “Alliance for Accountability”- founded by Khuram Zaman, a DC area entrepreneur and activist. He claims to have created the “1st American Muslim Super PAC.” PACs have been around the Muslim community for decades, but expenditure-only super PACs are new (there are other Super PACs now, and more are being created). 

Several people have requested that I write about this PAC and why it might be a problem for the Muslim community. All indications are the founder, Khuram Zaman, has impressed many with his presentation and has come off to some as a potential leader with the answers to the American Muslim community’s predicament of being completely irrelevant anywhere in America’s political party duopoly. 

I will address this in FAQ form: 

So let’s go to the basics: the SEC filing says, “Alliance for Accountability is a “Hybrid PAC”- what is that?

The “Political Action Committee” (PAC) is a catch-all term for various political spending accounts to which people donate, but there is no tax deduction. Different politicians, organizations, or individuals can organize these. A political action committee does not need to be a “committee.” It could just be one person doing everything. Zaman correctly calls it a “Super PAC” because one account in a hybrid PAC is a “Super PAC.” 

While the PAC has different permutations, they can be reduced to two activities for most purposes:

The first is that individuals may donate to a PAC, which will donate to candidates it likes. This activity is the more “regulated” or “traditional” PAC. 

The second PAC is an outgrowth of the 2010 case of Citizens United vs. FEC- these are known as “Super PACs,” they can allow for unlimited contributions by individuals and corporations and unlimited spending for or against political candidates, but they don’t donate to candidates. Instead, they do “independent expenditures” to get a candidate elected or defeated. There are certain rules and exceptions; however, the ability to spend and raise money is limitless.

A “hybrid” PAC is simply both of those things combined. There are separate accounts that are regulated differently.

A PAC is the “secret sauce” for pro-Israel advocacy, so is that our solution?

This kind of conclusion is common, but it’s also reductive. There is a complex set of reasons why the entire United States political system supports the oppression and subjugation of Palestinians and why our foreign policy is the way it is that is beyond the scope of this article. While it makes sense for Muslims to participate in the political system through PACs (something I will get to in a future article), this is not merely a game about who spends the most money on PACs. That is a good thing since the Muslim community is likely to lose that game. 

A PAC is like a charity without a tax deduction, right? 

No. PACs are regulated quite differently (and less likely to be regulated) than charities. Under state law and IRC Section 501(c)(3), a charity must be for specific public benefits. Politics is about the allocation of public resources. Public resources can benefit the common good, specific individuals, companies, or even foreign governments. As they are frequently used, PACs tend to corrupt the political system. Their operation can often look and feel like corruption, but that is a part of the system. 

Under US law, PACs do not need to run or operate like charities. Activities that might get a 501(c)(3) leader or government official into serious trouble are fine and legal for PACs. One of the major concerns that the Muslim community should have is that we are bringing an entirely corrupt system into Muslim community spaces, often doing it because of a religious imperative of helping our brothers and sisters. Depending on how we donate, this can be self-defeating. 

What is the potential downside of PACs?

In my previous article, I discussed how the Muslim community has invested in a failed political class. Much of it includes careerists, opportunists, and the craven sycophants who will only keep digging us into a deeper hole. 

Nothing special about a PAC would make the situation any better. Indeed, many of the same people can start PACs only to provide the illusion to well-meaning donors that their money is going to be used to improve the influence Muslims have in the political system. This may help some Muslims get ahead in a corrupt system.

The Founder of the Alliance for Accountability is Khuram Zaman. Does he have a history of exemplary service in the Muslim community?

No. At least not in any way that would indicate any benefits to American Muslims when it comes to foreign policy or civil rights. The basic reasons are fairly easy to see: 

• A record that shows a bizarre level of hostility to efforts supporting Palestinians, including BDS.  

• A history of government contracting with the Department of Defense and the U.S. Air Force. 

• Acting as a federal government contractor in “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE). 

• The PAC appears to be set up mainly for personal profit.

• Zaman, as a manager and as a person, appears to be an inappropriate choice as someone who should hold a position of public trust within the Muslim community. 

6. There is much to unpack with that list, but first, I’m not getting this thing about Khuram Zaman having an anti-Palestinian record when much of his pitch to donors is to “support Pro-Palestine candidates.” What do you mean? 

Indeed, much of the marketing among Muslim donors preys on the Muslim community’s anxiety about Palestine and the Biden Administration-supported genocide taking place there. If Zaman has been supportive of Palestinians, he has had some unusual ways of showing it. 

For example, he presently brags about how he worked for an organization whose mission is to defend a foreign country hostile to Palestinians. Currently, the organization documents pro-ceasefire rallies around the United States as antisemitism. While people have a right to advocate for whatever they want, this association contradicts the role of a Muslim leader in the United States who ostensibly wants to support Palestinians. 

Zaman has also vocally supported an anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) program called the Muslim Leadership Initiative (MLI). He stated he wanted to go on it to prove a point. While he has told people he has not gone on the specific MLI trip, he was an emotional defender of sticking it to opponents.

Also, Zaman claimed Zahra Billoo, the Executive Director of CAIR in the San Francisco Bay Area, was expelled from the board of the Women’s March because she was too “radical.” Zaman claimed Billoo’s expressions against Zionism (she is against it) could reasonably be interpreted as a call for ethnic cleansing against Jews. This level of melodrama when it comes to the defense of a foreign country is a bit unusual for Muslim leaders. However, it would be completely normal for a propagandist in that foreign country to say things like that.

For Muslims who want to support PACs because of our ineffectiveness and powerlessness when it comes to foreign policy, it may make sense to keep looking. 

So what if a Muslim leader conducts business with the government, including the Department of Defense and the Air Force? 

It is possible to generally support the notion of a military (as a general matter, without getting into wars or atrocities) while still seeing how this may be a problem. Much of the advocacy that Muslims may care about has to do with military policy, such as who weapons are supplied to and who is bombed.  There may also be policy issues like the kinds of contracts doled out and the overall size of the military budget.  

In a prior article about another “Muslim” political organization, I pointed out the ties another founder had with defense contracting, and that it may not be a coincidence the organization has nothing to say about drone strikes against civilians in places that are not war zones.

It’s challenging to the point of impossible to be economically dependent on the infrastructure of death and destruction while being an advocate against those same things.

Rules governing conflicts of interest exist in many spheres of life, including various legal and medical professions, government service, and other areas. Advocacy like this can easily be compromised. If you donate to a PAC, you should consider one that does not have conflict of interest problems.

Why is it bad that someone worked on Countering Violent Extremism programs? Don’t we all assume violent extremism is bad? 

The Obama-Biden Administration's CVE program, for which Zaman’s company was a contractor for the Department of Homeland Security, was premised on the notion that (1) it was possible to predict who a future “terrorist” might be and (2) Islam was a problem religion, and Muslims were a problem community that deserved to be singled out for a malady known as “violent extremism.”

Even supporters of the program at the time agreed there was never any benefit to the Muslim community. There were two reasons Muslims should support CVE, other than the obvious: Professional Muslims who were feeding at the national security trough:

• We should accept this awful program to hopefully avoid worse things like the government expelling us or throwing us into prison camps or whatever else “Islamophobes” dreamed up.

• A hyper-specific kind of internalized Islamophobia - like parents of teens worried they are losing their children to random YouTube preachers.

The second excuse had a sincere though niche and limited-time audience; parents and children often grow out of their existential angst. The first “comply or else” argument was like launching a lead balloon over the Muslim community, expecting to see it soar. Shockingly, most Muslims had more self-respect than the Obama-Biden Administration and its craven contractors gave them credit for.

Zaman, beyond being an advocate for CVE, claimed opponents of CVE were insufficiently alarmed by overseas violence. 

Muslim organizations with CVE plans mostly abandoned it years ago. There were two Muslim organizations I am aware of that created their own documented CVE programs. After years of trying, one admitted that this was a bad idea they should not have pursued. The second CVE organization has since shut down; the head of the organization, after a strange experience as a MAGA cultist, converted to Christianity and now runs a ministry.

Explain how it looks like this PAC is set up for personal profit.

Often, by their nature, PACs can be created by politicians or by activists who are also entrepreneurs. Zaman has often focused on his technical skills to highlight his potential effectiveness in this space. Naturally, service providers, providers of data, analysis, strategists, copywriters, graphic designers, etc, need to be paid somehow.

However, rules around conflicts of interest and self-dealing with donor funds don’t exist in the PAC space as they may in traditional businesses, nonprofits, professions, and governments. It is fairly routine for people who run PACs to pay whatever they want to themselves with other people’s money. If we are going to invest in PACs within the Muslim community, we should do what we can to ensure that it is not an ethics-free zone. PACs, in the wrong hands, can easily waste the Muslim community’s resources.

As Zaman’s PAC has only recently launched, we don’t yet know if it will benefit him or anyone. 

Gosh, that is a lot, but you said something about him being an inappropriate choice for a person to hold a position of public trust in the Muslim community. That’s a bit vague; what do you mean?

There are two aspects to this. The first is his character as a person. I spoke to a prominent Muslim leader in the DC area who pointed out that Zaman is the kind of person who attacks a person’s parents he had never met in the most vile terms possible. 

I also had the opportunity to speak with someone intimately familiar with his business dealings over several years. While this person was clear that he bore no ill will towards Zaman and considered him a good project manager, he should never be trusted with money, and trusting him with a PAC is an exceptionally bad idea. 

But maybe he is a different person now, and we should trust him with our money to protect civil rights for all and to help free Palestine, right? 

Maybe. Let me know in the comments.