United Nations and traditional American support for human rights, self-determination and fair play. The Washington Report carries articles with perspectives ranging from the Israeli left (e.g., Uri Avnery, Ilan Pappe), to libertarian (e.g., Sheldon Richman and Leon Hadar), to the isolationist U.S. right (e.g., Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan). As long ago as 1990, the publication argued that criticism of Israel (generally defined as Anti-Zionism) should not be equated with antisemitism. The magazine often publishes articles and letters (both to itself and outside publications) that seek a one-state solution to replace Israel with a state comprising both Israel and the Palestinian territories that would have a large Muslim majority population, and also offers uncritical platforms for the mostly one-state movement of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, during the fall of the Soviet Union, the Washington Report wrote about the future of Soviet Jews and stated that most Jews wanted to emigrate to either Europe or the United States rather than Israel and that the arrival of large numbers of emigrants into Israel would harm the economy or lead to an influx of Soviet Jews into the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Washington Report publishes listings of pro-Israel political action committee contributions to congressional candidates for each Congress, as well as elected representatives' voting records during each Congress. It also publishes a sum total of direct aid to Israel, which it estimates at almost $114 billion. This resource has been quoted by a number of publications over the years. The Washington Report has published dozens of articles about the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In 1989, founders Andrew Killgore and Richard Curtiss joined other plaintiffs in complaining that the Federal Election Commission had improperly refused to label AIPAC a "political action committee" (PAC) and require AIPAC to disclose the sources and uses of money. The case went to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in a majority decision that the plaintiffs had the right to raise issues regarding AIPAC, but referred the PAC matter back to the FEC because the FEC was drafting its membership threshold rules to directly address the unclear issue. The FEC decided that AIPAC did not spend an amount of time or money on political issues to make it a PAC, and in 2010 the last of WRMEAs appeals to have the FEC ruling reversed was dismissed.