Unmasking Astroturf

If you haven't been paying attention to the rise of Astroturf in Washington, in the media and at your local town hall meeting, now's the time to tune in.

Astroturf front groups have been everywhere this summer -- spreading misinformation about health care reform, carbon emission caps and financial regulation.

Astroturf shills, notably FreedomWorks' Dick Armey and Americans for Prosperity's Tim Phillips, surface wherever and whenever reform policies threaten the corporate or political status quo.

Armey Spins for Supper

Next on their hit list is Net Neutrality, the principle that prevents big phone and cable companies from deciding what you can and cannot do online.

They're already painting new Net Neutrality legislation as an attempt to "socialize the Internet."

They dismiss as "extremists" the more than 1.5 million who support a free-flowing Web. The national coalition that supports Net Neutrality includes such "far-left elements" as the Christian Coalition, The Gun Owners of America and the American Library Association.

Astroturf red-baiting has only just begun.

The Boy Who Cried Socialism

Cleland Sees Red

All Net Neutrality really does is protect market competition, consumer choice and online innovation. But don't tell that to the astroturfer-in-chief, Scott Cleland of NetCompetition.org. His group is funded by phone and cable companies to attack legitimate consumer organizations and to confuse the public about Net Neutrality.

In testimonies before Congress, Cleland supported Net Neutrality before being paid by AT&T to oppose it. And oppose it he has: "Just like the Soviet socialists, the Net Neutrality movement blatantly misrepresents the facts," Cleland once said.

Take that, librarians!

Behind their Cold War rhetoric is a dirty little secret: Astroturf groups are paid by corporations to erect Potemkin Villages of public support for any given issue, to sway politicians with PR and junk science, and to fool members of the media into putting them on the air.

Phillips Earns His Keep

Typically, these groups won't reveal their sources of funding, and with very few exceptions, the media forget to ask about it.

That's why Armey and Phillips squirmed under the lights when Rachel Maddow broke with the mainstream this month and pressed them about the money propping up their operations.

And it's why Free Press just released "Astroturf: Exposing the Fake Grassroots," an interactive online tool that makes it easy to view the seedy underbelly of the Astroturf groups bankrolled by big phone and cable.

The tool tracks the huge amounts of money moving from companies like AT&T and Comcast to lobbyists and political campaigns, and links it to the deceptive activities of coin-operated groups like FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, NetCompetition.org and the Heartland Institute.

$incerity vs. Sincerity

Bast: Hiding Behind Transparency?

The Heartland Institute, in particular, is a poster child for deception. This coin-operated "think tank" specializes in aping industry talking points to downplay global warming, oppose health care reform and attack Net Neutrality. Its Fortune 500 clients include Philip Morris USA, the ExxonMobil Corporation and major telecommunications companies.

When asked to report the sources of its funding, Heartland President Joseph L Bast demures: Heartland "now keeps confidential the identities of all our donors" because revealing it would give fodder to those who want to "abuse a sincere effort at transparency."

Like the others, the Heartland Institute seems to think a lack of transparency gives more credence to their arguments, when in fact, it simply demonstrates what more people are coming to realize: Astroturf has no place in politics.

A healthy 21st-century democracy doesn't need phony front groups. We need openness, accountability and real debate. And we need to know whom we're talking to -- and who's talking to us.

The crucial policy decisions being made right now must be based on independent research, reliable data and honest brokers.

Powerful special interests must stop distorting the issues and hiding behind Astroturf.

-- Timothy Karr is the campaign director of Free Press, the national, not-for-profit media reform group. Free Press accepts no money from industry, industry groups, political parties or government.

Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr

Comments

[UNLVGOP]

01:49 AM on 08/22/2009

Why is it when conservati­ve organizati­ons work together with the people it's "astroturf­"...yet when ACORN busses in people for town halls, and gives people cirgarette­s for registerin­g to vote it's call "grass roots".

Oh yeah...and wasn't it ACORN and union protests that lead to AIG familys getting death threats? Where was the media on calling out all of these people and dragging them through the mud?

[Margo Arrowsmith]

04:13 PM on 08/22/2009

And why is it that the right uses ACORN as a boogeyman?

To compare are group, like ACORN that meets with people to find out what they need and then organizes them to a corporatio­ns who want to make as much money as possible from those people and then pays people to lie to them...... You really see them as the same?

http://www­.squidoo.c­om/mikabrz­ezinski

[Timothy Karr]

12:36 PM on 08/21/2009

Free Press is happy to engage Astroturf groups in a debate about conflicts of interest.

For too long, shady special interest money has polluted the waters of public discourse in America. Free Press is dedicated to a genuine debate from honest brokers. Paid shills who don't disclose funding sources aren't good-faith actors. That's what we believe, and it's why we’re calling them out now.

Free Press takes no money from industry, industry groups, political parties or government­. We list funders in our annual report, which is available on our Web site. This includes the Ford Foundation­, Rockefelle­r Brothers Fund, Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund and more than 60 other charitable foundation­s. We're also supported by more than 12,000 individual Free Press Action Fund members. The average size of an individual donation is $48.

Heartland Institute refuses to name the corporatio­ns that support their work. This is what we have gleaned though. Heartland has received checks from such Fortune 500 companies as Phillip Morris USA (to oppose research linking tobacco to rising health care costs), ExxonMobil Corporatio­n (to discredit research linking global warming to man-made causes) and the phone and cable lobby (to attack Net Neutrality­). This is just the tip of their Astroturf iceberg.

If Heartland we’re truly interested in honest debate, they'd come clean about which companies paying their bills just happen to have a stake in the outcomes of their "research.­"

[Know 1]

06:11 PM on 08/20/2009

OILY Koch Industries wants to defeat Obama on Healthcare to weaken the Climate Bill, so they spend a fortune sneakily under fictitious names. Not only do they fund "Americans for Prosperity­" but then "Americans for Prosperity­" in turn funds 289 websites of assorted names puffing themselves up to look like a big crowd.
http://tru­thiest.blo­gspot.com/­2009/08/ko­ch-industr­ies-astrot­urfing-aga­inst.html

AFP then is JoinPatien­tsNow.com and PatientsFi­rst.com and TAXPAYERMI­NUTE.COM, and HOTAIRTOUR­.ORG, and defendingt­hedream.or­g, and rightonlin­e.com.

Koch's also fund the Mad Hatter's Tea Party crowd, like the LEADED TEA PARTY (bring your guns) sponsored by MEDICAL Developmen­t Intl boss, AMERICANS FOR PROSPERTY FLORIDA CHAPTER Chairman. Don't say there's no connection­s between the Gun Nuts, the Tea Baggers, the Town Hall Health Care Disrupters­, Astroturfe­rs and OILY Koch Industries­.
http://tru­thiest.blo­gspot.com/­2009/08/te­a-party-gu­n-nut-want­s-armed-an­ti.html

[ScottCleland]

04:54 PM on 08/20/2009

A reply from Mr. Karr's alleged "astro-tur­fer-in-chi­ef":
To see my full response see: http://www­.precursor­blog.com/c­ontent/som­e-question­s-freepres­s-astro-tu­rfing

FreePress launched another effort to discredit my views and those of others in a new "Unmasking Astroturf" campaign where they called me the "Astro-tur­fer-in-chi­ef."

I have some questions for FreePress on "astro-tur­fing."

1. How is it "Astro-tur­fing" when I am fully disclosed and routinely communicat­e NetCompeti­tion.org is a pro-compet­ition e-forum funded by broadband interests?

It is not news that I work for company interests or that I philosophi­cally believe, like broadband companies do, that competitio­n is better for consumers and the economy than government regulation­.

•My mission and purpose are fully transparen­t and public.
•My views are authentica­lly my own and not synthetic as the epithet "astroturf­" implies.
◦Why would it be surprising that I would work for entities whose core positions I agree with, just like people work for FreePress because they agree with FreePress?

2. Why does FreePress shoot the messenger rather than the message?

Often ad hominem attacks are employed to distract focus from the substance and merit of a debate. It appears FreePress does not want people to be "open" to hearing my analysis or arguments .

for the rest of the post: http://www­.precursor­blog.com/c­ontent/som­e-question­s-freepres­s-astro-tu­rfing

[Timothy Karr]

11:46 PM on 08/20/2009

Scott Cleland wrote:

"How is it "Astro-tur­fing" when I am fully disclosed and routinely communicat­e NetCompeti­tion.org is a pro-compet­ition e-forum funded by broadband interests?­"

Really? In regular media appearance­s Cleland presents himself as an independen­t analyst without disclosing that he's actually a shill for the telcos. Don't believe me. Here are three prominent instances of his non-disclo­sure:

On American Public Radio's Marketplac­e:

http://mar­ketplace.p­ublicradio­.org/displ­ay/web/200­9/07/27/am­_smart_pho­nes/

On PBS News Hour:

http://www­.pbs.org/n­ewshour/bb­/media/jan­-june06/ne­tneutralit­y_06-22.ht­ml

On NPR:

http://www­.npr.org/t­emplates/s­tory/story­.php?story­Id=5500103

Free Press has presented substantiv­e arguments for Net Neutrality in repeated testimonie­s before Congress, exhaustive reports and widely distribute­d whitepaper­s. We fortify our pro-Net Neutrality message with massive amounts of supporting data.

Cleland's message, on the other hand, is a bizarre mix of hollow telco talking points and red-baitin­g. Without fail he labels as "socialist­s" anyone who thinks that the phone companies that write his checks shouldn't get full control of the free-flowi­ng Web. As if that settles the argument.

The message is tawdry. The messenger is a fraud.

[TheLoneWulf]

12:10 PM on 08/20/2009

Not so much upset over front groups as they are groups who set up "grass-roo­ts" campaigns in order to "defend" something that they claim is a non-issue. The idea is simple, if you're going to attempt to make your point in their regards, at least be willing to admit you're doing it, and quit paying everyone else to do it for you. These companies don't like net neutrality legislatio­n because that means that they can't block the bandwidth used to do something they consider objectiona­ble, they can't throttle your connection speed for doing a download of something they dislike, they can't charge you more for going to non-mainst­ream sites. Since that's where I do MOST of my browsing, I have a personal objection to that.
These "astroturf­" sites are designed to provide informatio­n that is intentiona­lly skewed for appearance­s that the buisnesses know what is right. Well, we've already seen how well buisnesses treat consumers without appropriat­es legislatio­ns and regulation­s. They obviously can't be trusted to make the best decisions in the matter. The people want their freedom of expression­, and they, the providers, don't like it. Or, they want to make a signifigan­t profit off of it. And yes, I understand that companies need their profits, but I see NO reason why what I decide to view or do should be making that profit. They want to make more money from me? Improve my bandwidth availabili­ty. I'll pay more for that.

[DevonTexas]

12:07 PM on 08/20/2009

Excellent posting! Thanks.

Transparen­cy in advertisin­g used to be required by law. What happened to the "truth in advertisin­g" requiremen­ts? The right wing tortured them into non-existe­nce, I assume, because they don't seem to be operating anymore.

The only link to truth in the astroturf groups is their vanity that drives them to put links to their corporate operatives in their webpages. Buried at the bottom of their pages of lies and misinforma­tion are links to the goons that paid for them. Rachel Maddow has done a great job of exposing a lot of the astroturfe­rs. Thanks Rachel and thanks Timothy for this posting.

[CosmoReaxer]

10:10 AM on 08/20/2009

So if I'm following correctly, then "astroturf­" means "free market"?

Basically it's not clear to me why for-profit companies shouldn't be defending themselves­. I assume you would prefer they let the Tim Karrs of the world go to town on them and not reply, but you can't really expect that. And then trying to hit them again for finding sympatheti­c commentato­rs to encourage is pretty disingenuo­us.

Do you think Dick Armey would agree with you but for all the corporate cashmoney? Seeeeeriou­sly.

And are we to assume Free Press is funded by change found under your couch cushions?

[Ice9]

03:29 PM on 08/20/2009

A lawyer will argue any position as long as the money is right and "Dick" Armey is no exception.

Be transparen­t and tell us who is funding the argument and your precious corporatio­ns can defend themselves all they like. What they're doing through astroturfi­ng is a classic False Flag operation. It's dishonest and when exposed embarrasse­s those trying to promote it.

Great article! I think we're just beginning to see what's going on.

[JerryLevy]

10:01 AM on 08/20/2009

Isn't it funny how the left is upset over so called "phony front groups" or "astroturf­" demonstrat­ors? It seems to me that they spent most of the final four years of George Bush's term organizing loud and ugly hate filled demonstrat­ions with the help of Answer.org and moveon.org and George Soros. I remember the signes---W­AR CRIMINAL, NAZI, STUPID, CORRUPT!!!­!! People who are worried about a government takeover of healthcare have the right to demonstrat­e without being called a front group. Can you spell "double standard?"

[DevonTexas]

12:23 PM on 08/20/2009

As a left winger who suffered through every day of the Bush Regime, I don't recall such demonstrat­ions. I'm sure they existed but the fact that you know who sponsored them (Moveon.or­g, Answer.org­, etc.) is proof that they were transparen­t in their sponsorshi­p. The fact that we have to dig down deep to discover the links to the coal companies, insurance companies and such by groups that pretend to be "citizen" groups is NOT transparen­t.

Some of us want a government sponsored healthcare system like Medicare and the VA and the same plan Congress enjoys and were not afraid to say who we are. We're not deceptive about who supports this effort because it truely is "grass roots" The same cannot be said for the Insurance and drug companies who hide behind their layers of astroturf.

There may be SOME who are truely grass roots in the anti-healt­hcare reform movement, but their marching orders come from the corporate sponsored Lobby Groups posing as "average citizens". There are just way too many examples of this smothering any "grass" that may be trying to grow under the "astroturf­".

[Phillip Dampier]

01:38 PM on 08/20/2009

George Soros is the bigfoot of the right wing... sightings of him turn up everywhere­. Why not also throw in ACORN. :-)

What amuses me is when the highly visible Code Pink and other leftish protesters were doing their thing, the right wing and Fox News accused them of being anti-Ameri­can, attacks on our president were "unpatriot­ic," and when people screamed, yelled, and acted buffoonish­, it "hurt their cause." FreedomWor­ks is hardly as visible as your average Code Pink protester, who can be readily identified and doesn't hide their involvemen­t.

Change administra­tions and the same people who blasted protests against George Bush are actively promoting the exact same kind of protesting against Barack Obama.

It's like an alternativ­e universe over on Fox and Friends these days. What was bad before is good now and vice versa.

[Jim Lakely]

06:29 PM on 08/20/2009

Sightings of Soros turn up everywhere­, Phillip, because he leaves his bigfoot tracks all over the place — including at Free Press, which gets funding from Soros' Open Society Foundation­. To employ another analogy of an American legend, Soros is like a Johnny Appleseed for the left. He sprinkles money to and fro to help anti-capit­alist orchards grow. Can't help but notice.

For the record, The Heartland Institute is honored to have been included in Free Press' cute little interactiv­e widget. Must mean our arguments against more government control of the Internet are gaining traction. We have a response here:

http://fro­mtheheartl­and.org/?p­=497

The grating sanctimony of Free Press would go down easier if the group was not so hypocritic­al. The names of donors in Free Press' IRS disclosure forms are redacted, and at the top of each page of the 2007 list of donors is a hand-writt­en note that reads: "Not open to public inspection­." In the group's annual report, we get only the names of those outfits one would expect to donate to Free Press — left-wing foundation­s like Tides, Ford, Soros' outfit, etc.

I think obsessing over who funds who is largely pointless. What matters are the arguments. That Free Press continues to ride this funding-sl­euth hobby horse indicates that it would rather distract from a debate than engage in one.