But What Can You Do? tracks where 2026 candidates stand on U.S. weapons and funding for the government of Israel. How we check

Teri Hourihan

Hourihan's campaign site says she takes "no AIPAC money" and adds: "I support Israel and unequivocally oppose antisemitism. My position is about campaign money and political influence". The site names no weapons or aid. A reported August 2026 post questioning U.S. money going to Israel could not be read.

✉ Email the campaign Website ↗X ↗Facebook ↗

The email has replies@butwhatcanyoudo.org in cc, so we can post their answer on their page in their own words; remove it if you prefer. Keep the subject line as it is, add your name, and send.

Deep Dive

Hourihan is a counselor and small-business owner who won the No Labels primary in July 2026 and named a running mate in early August.

Her campaign site says: "I take no PAC money, no AIPAC money, and no special-interest money." It explains the AIPAC mention in her own words: "I specifically mention AIPAC because I am frequently asked by voters whether my campaign accepts its financial support, and I want to answer that question directly and transparently—not because of its connection to Israel or the Jewish community. I support Israel and unequivocally oppose antisemitism. My position is about campaign money and political influence, and I apply the same standard to PACs and powerful special interests across the political spectrum." That is a pledge about whose money her campaign takes, with a general statement of support. It says nothing about what the United States should send to the government of Israel or to Palestinians, and this card does not treat it as if it did.

One account of an August 8, 2026 post says she shared a chart of foreign spending and wrote that she was looking at the amount of U.S. money going to Israel and had serious questions, adding that state leaders should demand transparency when taxpayer dollars are spent overseas. The post itself sits on a Facebook page we tried to open and could not, so nothing about that statement is asserted here as fact. Her own site, which we did read, carries no aid or weapons content.

If you want her actual position, you are better placed to get it than we are: ask Hourihan directly and send us the reply. It goes on this page in her own words.

The record

Notable actions

• Her campaign front page states "NO PAC, AIPAC, OR CORPORATE FUNDING NOW OR EVER!" and she writes that she refuses PAC, AIPAC and corporate donations because that money influences officials. AIPAC is one of several kinds of money named, not the subject of the plank. Nothing on the site addresses U.S. weapons or aid. Undated campaign page, read on this date, so current-position in time.

How this mark works

We track key votes on sending U.S. weapons and money to the government of Israel. A check means every tracked vote they cast came down against sending more, on the side of peace and de-escalation. A question mark means a mixed record: they sided with sending up to half of the time. An X means they voted to send more weapons and money in over half of their tracked votes, even as the way those weapons and dollars were being used became more and more obvious. At exactly half, money this election cycle from a lobbying group we track, or an endorsement from a group that backs sending weapons, makes it an X. Only votes actually cast are counted. Where a candidate has no recorded votes on these bills, the mark comes instead from a reviewed reading of their public record (money from the lobbying groups we track, endorsements, and their own words since January 26, 2024). There an X also covers fully backing the conduct of the war by the government of Israel without significant reservations, and a question mark also covers speaking about Israel without saying clearly where they stand on U.S. weapons and funding. A dash means No Position Found: we found nothing in their own words about Israel, Gaza or the war.

See a dash? Ask the candidate where they stand, then send us their answer and we'll review it and update the mark. Or volunteer to help review candidates.

Two reviewers, reading the public record as a whole, agree: On her campaign site in October 2026 she says "I support Israel" and that, in refusing AIPAC money, her "position is about campaign money and political influence", without saying where she stands on U.S. weapons and funding for the government of Israel. Reviewed by hand on 2026-10-09. This candidate has no recorded tracked floor votes.

Research log

The notes behind this card: what we looked at, what we found, and where each item came from.

U.S. military aid and weapons to Israel

[Position, 2026-08-08, reported; source could not be opened] Social-media statement sharing a foreign-spending chart: "I'm looking at this graph showing the amount of U.S. money going to Israel, and I have serious questions," with an argument that state leaders should demand transparency and accountability for taxpayer dollars spent overseas. The only source is a Facebook post that we tried to open and could not; not asserted as fact anywhere on the card. Her own site, which we read in full (~1,100 words), carries no aid or weapons content.

U.S. aid to Palestinians

Nothing located.

Characterization of the conflict

Nothing located.

Related rhetoric and lobbying

[Position, read 2026-10-01] Her campaign site, under "No Special Interests or PACs": "I do not accept PAC, AIPAC PAC, or corporate funding or donations. I specifically mention AIPAC because I am frequently asked by voters whether my campaign accepts its financial support, and I want to answer that question directly and transparently—not because of its connection to Israel or the Jewish community. I support Israel and unequivocally oppose antisemitism. My position is about campaign money and political influence, and I apply the same standard to PACs and powerful special interests across the political spectrum." Elsewhere on the page: "I take no PAC money, no AIPAC money, and no special-interest money." The page is undated, so it is banded to the day it was read. It names no weapons or aid. The explanation and the statement of support were not on the page when it was read on 2026-08-14.
[Position, read 2026-08-14] Campaign-finance pledge as the same site worded it then: "NO PAC, AIPAC, OR CORPORATE FUNDING NOW OR EVER!" and "I do not accept PAC, AIPAC, or corporate funding or donations." On 2026-10-01 the first line was no longer on the page and the second read "AIPAC PAC". Per the standing content rule, a money-refusal pledge is never read as a weapons or funding position; it is carried here as her campaign-finance stance. The same unread post (2026-08-08) is reported to say that accepting money or endorsements from groups like AIPAC creates conflicts of interest.
[Position, 2026-08-07] Race context: named her running mate (Arizona Capitol Times). A 12News interview source returned 403.

Safety and antisemitism (context)

Nothing located.

Also in this race

? Katie Hobbs (Democrat)
✗ Andy Biggs (Republican)
– Risa Lombardo (Green)

All Arizona candidates.