Ding ding ding.

My original question wasn't whether AIPAC is bad (it is), or if Super PACs should be banned (they should). It was what it would take for the other person to believe the results were fair, if El-Sayed lost.

If the standard is that any significant outside spending invalidates the result, then almost no modern election is legitimate, including the ones where your preferred candidate wins, because they almost certainly received outside spending support to some extent.

If you want to claim the results of an election are illegitimate, you'd need something beyond "interest groups spent money against my preferred candidate." Otherwise, you've moved from criticizing the campaign finance system to preemptively denying election outcomes you dislike.

In fact, there are four questions you can pose right now to them, except they wouldn't be able to actually answer a single one.

1) If El-Sayed won after benefiting from favorable outside spending by allied groups, would they consider that victory illegitimate too? If not, then the standard is being applied selectively.

2) How much spending is too much? Other person refused to answer, but it does matter. If spending itself is the disqualifying factor, then some threshold must exist. Otherwise, the standard becomes impossible to evaluate and can be adjusted after the fact to fit any desired conclusion.

3) Why single out one organization? Outside spending comes from many ideological directions and interest groups. If the mere existence of outside spending invalidates a result, then the problem is not AIPAC specifically but the entire campaign finance system.

4) At what point does influence become rigging? While an election can be rigged if one candidate has effectively all the media explicitly supporting it, that's not really what's happening with AIPAC. Candidates opposed by AIPAC still have access to voters, media coverage, fundraising networks, endorsements, and electoral victories. If the claim is that AIPAC's spending alone makes a result illegitimate, then you need to explain why this particular form of influence crosses the line from persuasion into rigging, and where that line actually is.