This article details reported links between Mohamed Soltan, the American Committee for Middle East Rights, and contributions to Abdul El‑Sayed’s Senate effort, tracing past statements and affiliations that critics say connect El‑Sayed to groups and figures with troubling records.

Mohamed Soltan is identified as the president of the American Committee for Middle East Rights and an Egyptian American activist who was sentenced in absentia to life in prison by a Cairo court for supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt labeled the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization years ago after major uprisings and the ouster of Hosni Mubarak. The piece notes Soltan was sentenced in 2015, imprisoned for two years, then returned to the U.S. after being released at the request of President Obama, where he works as an international investment advisor and “human rights activist.”

Documents reported from Federal Election Commission filings show ACMER made a $25,000 payment to Fighting for Michigan PAC on June 12, following two individual contributions from Mohamed Soltan to Abdul for U.S. Senate on April 15. Other ACMER officials reportedly also gave, with amounts and dates tied to the same campaign cycle. Those transfers are presented in the article as part of a broader pattern tying donor activity to El‑Sayed’s Senate bid.

Federal Election Commission reports show ACMER sent Fighting for Michigan PAC $25,000 on June 12, following two contributions from Mohamed Soltan to Abdul for U.S. Senate on April 15.

The individual contribution constitutes the maximum permitted by federal election law.

Other ACMER officials also contributed to El-Sayed’s effort to become the first Muslim Senator in U.S. history.

https://x.com/Th_Midwesterner/status/2091872933396238707

ACMER Treasurer Muna Jondy contributed $15,000 to Fighting for Michigan PAC on June 7, and $7,000 to Abdul for U.S. Senate on June 24, while ACMER Executive Director Kristina Blyad gave $1,000 to Abdul for U.S. Senate on February 13.

Blyad also serves as treasurer for ACMER’s Separate Segregated Fund, MERIT PAC, which contributed $1,500 to Abdul for U.S. Senate on June 3.

The donations follow a documented history of El-Sayed supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

El‑Sayed’s past statements and writings are highlighted to show his engagement with the Egyptian uprisings and nuanced defenses of the Muslim Brotherhood at the time. In 2011 he wrote a column urging Americans to support protesters in Egypt and argued the Brotherhood’s rise did not necessarily mean Iran‑style theocracy, calling them “less hierarchical than the Shiite brand of the [Islamic] religion.” The article links that posture to subsequent events in Egypt, including the resignation of Mubarak and the 2012 election of Mohamed Morsi.

The piece names additional supporters and donors who have rallied around El‑Sayed, portraying their histories as problematic for a U.S. Senate candidate. It mentions Iraqi‑American activist Anas Shallal hosting a fundraiser and describes his public positions on Cuba, the Free Palestine movement, and support for local politicians. It also points to Mohammad Ali Elahi of the Islamic House of Wisdom in Dearborn Heights as a donor and notes local religious activity and memorial events that drew scrutiny.

The article also flags El‑Sayed’s interest in certain authors and figures described as radical by critics, including Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, and relays allegations tying some named figures to controversial or violent episodes. It cites testimony and public hearings where senators raised questions about El‑Sayed’s associations, while framing those ties as part of why voters should scrutinize his candidacy. The tone remains pointed and skeptical about the national security implications of donor networks and personal affiliations.

Reporting in the piece mentions coverage of El‑Sayed’s family history and associations, including reporting that his mother worked for an organization once designated in 2004 as having terror ties. That detail is presented alongside the larger theme that patterns of support and prior relationships matter when evaluating a candidate for federal office. The article argues these connections are not isolated incidents but components of a dangerous pattern, according to the authors and sources cited.

Readers are given a sequence of incidents and donations laid out with dates and amounts to make the case more concrete, and the article emphasizes federal reporting as the basis for the campaign finance details. The narrative draws a throughline from statements in the early 2010s through recent campaign contributions, suggesting that longtime sympathies and associations remain relevant today. The coverage keeps returning to the core concern that foreign‑linked groups and individuals are influencing an American Senate race.

The reporting ends by urging attention to the full list of people and payments connected to El‑Sayed, arguing that Michigan voters deserve clarity about who supports him and why. It highlights specific names, dates, and contributions repeatedly to underscore the claimed pattern. The piece leaves the evidence and allegations in the reader’s hands without issuing new commentary beyond the cited material and the preserved quoted passages.