Progressives are facing a significant financial disadvantage in their battles with pro-Israel and other establishment Democratic forces. And they are aware of it.

Missouri Democratic Rep. Cori Bush's primary loss Tuesday at the hands of St. Louis County prosecutor Wesley Bell put into stark relief once again how progressive lawmakers are at risk of getting swarmed by gobs of outside money if they become targets of well-heeled advocacy groups. Bell focused much of his race on local issues and congressional legislation, but he was backed by more than $8 million from the pro-Israel United Democracy Project.

For years, liberals have criticized lax campaign finance laws that enable outside groups to pour millions of dollars into elections. But until these laws are reformed, the current electoral system remains in place, and even progressive groups acknowledge that they might not be able to compete financially.

"You can try to outmaneuver them, the classic left strategy of mobilizing enough supporters at the polls and in the community as the countermeasure. But how do you do that on a large scale?" asked progressive Democratic strategist Angelo Greco. "You can't compete unless you have your own fundraising operation, and we're not organized at that level just yet."

Progressives, who had been making strides since 2016, found themselves on the defensive after Hamas' terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7 and the subsequent war in the Gaza Strip.

UDP, which is affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and newer organizations such as Democratic Majority for Israel, poured millions into races to defeat candidates or lawmakers perceived as critical of Israel.

Bush's loss followed New York Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman's defeat to Westchester County Executive George Latimer. Latimer and UDP outspent Bowman and his allies by a nearly 5-to-1 margin, and Bush and her allies were outspent by Bell's allies (including UDP) by a roughly 3.5-to-1 margin, according to AdImpact.

The attacks on Bush and Bowman largely didn't focus on Israel, instead centering on issues like their opposition to President Joe Biden's infrastructure bill. But the two lawmakers' criticism of Israel opened the door to the spending -- and neither Bush nor Bowman could keep up on the airwaves.

"If they had sufficient funds to broadcast, they could have countered the message," stated Joseph Geevarghese, leader of Our Revolution, a progressive organization. "We're not suggesting matching dollar-for-dollar, but you need to have a presence."

Of course, not every liberal lawmaker is facing such formidable opposition. Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, one of the most prominent House progressives, is outspending her rivals in her Minneapolis primary, according to data from AdImpact.

However, the defeats of Bowman and Bush have prompted progressives to acknowledge their disadvantage in terms of financial resources, even as they continue to criticize campaign finance regulations they deem excessively lenient, according to experts.

Some progressives said the best approach is making such significant outside spending undesirable in Democratic politics and that investing more money of their own, even for progressives, shouldn't be the goal.

"The aim shouldn't be to transform $20 million Democratic primaries into $40 million Democratic primaries. That's a downward spiral for our democracy," expressed Usamah Andrabi, a spokesperson for the progressive group Justice Democrats.

"We should force more members of Congress to stand up to these interests and make accepting this money unacceptable," he added. "Part of it is educating voters about who these special interest groups are … and why they're advancing those interests."

Progressives are exploring the possibility of initiating legal action.

A petition in Maine seeks to limit contributions to super PACs, entities capable of spending unlimited amounts. The goal is to initiate a legal challenge that eventually reaches the Supreme Court, with the hope of persuading the justices that the 2010 Citizens United ruling, which restricted campaign fundraising but not super PACs due to their perceived independence, is excessively permissive in the current political climate.

Other political strategists highlighted the overall framework of progressives as an area ripe for enhancement.

The movement exhibits a high degree of fragmentation, with numerous advocacy groups, each with its distinct origin and policy focus, vying for a portion of the financial resources. This, in addition to the candidates themselves conducting their own campaigns.

Collaboration could be crucial, considering that not all races are deemed competitive, and the objectives of external groups often overlap.

This strategy was employed earlier this year when Michigan Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib, a progressive facing minimal primary opposition, contributed $500,000 from her campaign funds to Justice Democrats' "Squad" support group to assist Bowman. Although this effort didn't ultimately save the New Yorker, it might establish a precedent for increased collaboration.

"A gathering of progressives from diverse organizations and leadership positions is crucial to address this challenge, as the setbacks experienced by Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush are likely to recur," Geevarghese stated.

Beyond mere collaboration, some progressives advocated for a more calculated strategy.

Certain candidates amassed substantial sums for races where victory was assured. Others garnered significant funds for bids to unseat entrenched incumbents. And still others, like Bowman and Bush, secured decent contributions but adopted a more defensive stance, reacting to attacks that shaped their image in voters' minds rather than forging their own identities.

Political strategists have indicated that this situation needs to change.

"In terms of strategy, we can improve our decision-making regarding resource allocation," Greco stated, emphasizing the need for candidates and campaigns to be more proactive in "anticipating and addressing these attacks."

"Cori Bush, as a member of the Squad and a progressive, could have benefited from greater investment in showcasing her as a staunch supporter of the president's policies, instead of being painted as a critic."

Detractors of the progressive movement, on the other hand, insisted that financial resources weren't the root cause, asserting that the liberal lawmakers they targeted were simply unpopular.

"I believe the entire issue of spending disparity, the way it's being framed, is inherently disrespectful to voters. We provide voters with information that they might not have otherwise accessed. It's their prerogative to decide whether that information holds significance," remarked Mark Mellman, President of the Democratic Majority for Israel.

Progressive leaders acknowledged that the movement's challenges cannot be solely attributed to spending disparities.

Bowman, known for his criticism of Israel, in November spread misinformation claiming that sexual assault and rape did not occur during Hamas' Oct. 7 attack. Months later, Bowman expressed regret for his statements. He also garnered negative attention after triggering a fire alarm in the Capitol building before a House spending bill vote . Bush faced scrutiny after the Justice Department initiated an investigation into her campaign's spending on security services, which included work performed by her husband.

Furthermore, both representatives voted against Biden's landmark infrastructure bill, a vote they attributed to the legislation failing to meet the president's initial promises. However, this stance led critics to label them as unserious lawmakers.

"Strategically, the campaign was chaotic. It lacked effective management, and Bush made some avoidable blunders," remarked a progressive operative regarding Bush's reelection bid.

"Could they have acted less on their convictions and aligned with the majority? Perhaps, it might have preserved their positions. But that's not the kind of individuals we aim to send to Congress," the source said regarding the infrastructure votes.

However, political strategists expressed confidence that progressives would overcome these setbacks and that the movement's energy had not been extinguished by recent losses.

"I firmly believe that this discourages potential candidates from running and inhibits them from expressing their beliefs. This is definitely a concern," Faiz Shakir, a prominent liberal strategist, said regarding the spending targeting progressives. "But as long as there's a passionate group of progressives who bring attention to this issue, I am confident that at least we will have a discussion and debate about it."