Campaigns & Elections magazine however, defines the term of ‘astroturf’
as a "grassroots program that involves the instant manufacturing of public
support for a point of view in which either uninformed activists are recruited
or means of deception are used to recruit them" (
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Astroturf )
Astroturf refers to apparently grassroots groups or coalitions which are actually fake, often created by corporations or public relations firms.
Campaigns & Elections magazine defines astroturf as a "grassroots program that involves the instant manufacturing of public support for a point of view in which either uninformed activists are recruited or means of deception are used to recruit them." Journalist William Greider has coined his own term to describe corporate grassroots organizing. He calls it "democracy for hire."
Senator Lloyd Bentsen, himself a long-time Washington and Wall Street insider, is credited with coining the term "astroturf lobbying" to describe the synthetic grassroots movements that now can be manufactured for a fee by companies like Beckel Cowan, Bivings Group, Bonner & Associates, Burson-Marsteller, Davies Communications, DCI Group, Direct Impact, Hill & Knowlton, Issue Dynamics Inc., National Grassroots & Communications, or Optima Direct.
Unlike genuine grassroots activism which tends to be money-poor but people-rich, astroturf campaigns are typically people-poor but cash-rich. Funded heavily by corporate largesse, they use sophisticated computer databases, telephone banks and hired organizers to rope less-informed activists into sending letters to their elected officials or engaging in other actions that create the appearance of grassroots support for their client's cause.
William Greider's 1992 book, Who Will Tell the People, described an astroturf campaign run by Bonner & Associates as a "boiler room" operation with "300 phone lines and a sophisticated computer system, resembling the phone banks employed in election campaigns. Articulate young people sit in little booths every day, dialing around America on a variety of public issues, searching for 'white hat' citizens who can be persuaded to endorse the political objectives of Mobil Oil, Dow Chemical, Citicorp, Ohio Bell, Miller Brewing, US Tobacco, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association and dozens of other clients. This kind of political recruiting is expensive but not difficult. ... Imagine Bonner's technique multiplied and elaborated in different ways across hundreds of public issues and you may begin to envision the girth of this industry. ... This is democracy and it costs a fortune."
Astroturf techniques have been used to:
Sometimes genuine grassroots organizations are recruited into corporate-funded campaigns. In June 2003, for example, the Gray Panthers participated in protests against WorldCom that were funded largely by the telecommunications company's competitors such as Verizon. According to the Gray Panthers, this reflected a policy decision that the organization made prior to and independently of its funding. However, an article in the Washington Post raised questions about failures to publicly disclose the corporate funding which paid for full-page advertisements that the Gray Panthers took out in several major newspapers that called on the federal government to stop doing business with WorldCom. The ads said they were paid for the Gray Panthers but did not mention that Issue Dynamics Inc. (IDI), a PR firm that specializes in "grassroots PR," had provided most of the $200,000 it cost to place the ads. Verizon spokesman Eric Rabe has declined to say how much the company is paying IDI, and Gray Panthers Executive Director Timothy Fuller has declined to say how much of the funding for its "Corporate Accountability" project comes from IDI. Notwithstanding the egregious nature of WorldCom's corporate crimes, the lack of transparency in these funding arrangements by WorldCom's corporate competitors raises the question of whether the Gray Panthers campaign should be considered genuine grassroots or astroturf.
EXCERPTS: "Astroturf" campaigning and artificial grassroots groups support
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/03/one_bit_of_lobb.html
Today, it's easy for trade associations and major lobbying firms to
conceive and fund so-called "grassroots" issue campaigns that bear no
mark of their sponsors or betray their "Beltway" origins. This form of public
advocacy has acquired the unflattering appellation of "astroturf"
campaigning.
Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman want more disclosure and more transparency. They believe that voters are persuaded more easily by arguments that appear to come from "real" citizen-based groups. And that the grassroots lobbying laws are easily abused to allow lobbyists to manipulate both donors and the public.
Jack Abramoff used precisely
the harbor afforded by the law, and then some, to divorce cause from benefactor.
Christian anti-gambling groups were irate when their money was used to find
issue campaigns that benefited Indian tribes who wanted to protect their
casino kitties).
Well-fed Washington interest groups and major industry trade associations often
use the current law as a blanket to shield the common practice of setting up
"grassroots groups" whose provenance and backers are hidden. That allows
associations to avoid taking direct responsibility for their advocacy. The
pharmaceutical lobby can create an advocacy coalition without worry that
the stigma of "big PHRMA" would doom their efforts.
Another practice involves the hundreds of ideologically obscure interest groups that occupy tiny offices in Virginia and Washington, D.C. and in cities across America. Many are essentially empty vessels, waiting to be commandeered by a larger ship and given a cause to fight for. Well-funded entities can spray cash at the group, direct it to lobby for an issue, and then, when the issue has run its course, the trade association or lobbyist detaches, moves on, and the "grassroots group" latches itself to another cause that fits within their broad ideological confines. What may be deemed, in the biological sense, "parasitic." Think of these groups as honeycomb waiting for bees.
Section 105 of McCain and Lieberman's Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act would require lobbying firms to give "a good faith estimate" of how much they've spent on "grassroots lobbying activities," how much they spent on paid advertising, which clients engaged them specifically for grassroots lobbying, how much they spent per client (each disbursement over $10K would be disclosed), and what subjects -- including bill numbers and "specific executive branch activities" -- the campaigns involve. The bill's language tries to make it much more difficult for organizations to shield their grassroots efforts through intermediaries. Also, firms that agree to spend more than $250K on a "grassroots" lobbying project would have to disclose details about the project within 20 days of being enlisted.
Lobbyists and trade associations, grassroots groups and non-profits on both the left and the right joined to oppose changes to the law. It is tantamount to requiring every non-profit, tax-exempt organization to disclose to adversaries its total game plan and major donors. Several Senate aides familiar with the various reform legislation drafts say they don't expect the final mark-up to contain the grassroots provisions. They do not discount the possibility that sponsors might try to add them as amendments when lobbying reform legislation hits the Senate floor next week (March 2006, See Unit 1-- Senate committee rejects bipartisan proposal to establish an independent office to oversee the enforcement of congressional ethics and lobbying laws).
According to a coalition of 50 state-based conservative "grassroots" and public policy orgs, transparency and disclosure could actually stifle constitutionally-protected political speech and tip the balance of influence in favor of lobbyists.
A paragraph written by, among others, ex-FEC chair Bradley Smith, makes the case succinctly:
"Grassroots lobbying” (encouraging or stimulating the general public to contact lawmakers about issues of general concern) is citizen-to-citizen communication that fosters citizen-to-lawmaker communication. It correspondingly weakens the relative strength of lobbyist-to-lawmaker communications, in furtherance of Congress' objective in seeking lobbying reform. Efforts to limit grassroots lobbying, require disclosure of donors, or compel lobbyists to register with the government to assist groups in contacting fellow citizens, strips donors and consultants of constitutionally guaranteed anonymity, and would deprive organizations championing unpopular causes of skilled representation."
The argument in favor of anonymity observes firstly that legitimate grassroots enterprises and non-profits have earned constitutional protection from having to disclose their funding sources. That way, citizens can give to unpopular groups without reprisals.
In the words of Smith et. al, "This anonymity, long recognized and protected by the Supreme Court, fosters political association, guards against unwarranted invasions of privacy, and protects the citizens who fund or assist groups such as Progress for America or People for the American Way from calumny, obloquy, and possible retribution "including retribution by public officials."
By KATE PHILLIPS (NYT) 835 words
WASHINGTON - IN the eyes of one conservative group, a lesser-known Senate
lobbying proposal would have forced Revolutionary patriots to reveal their
leafleting routes to King George.
A fanciful leap, for sure, but what the provision would do is require the disclosure of money spent on the kind of grassroots campaigns that involve paying lobbyists to recruit large numbers of people to call or write or e-mail their lawmakers and press their views on, say, school prayer or trigger locks or greenhouse gases.
To its supporters, the provision would unmask ''Astroturf'' ventures, fake grassroots operations with big money funneled through shell groups that employ friendly voices and benign names to cajole voters into swamping government officials with messages. Nearly every elected official has felt the onslaught of mass campaigns: phone lines clogged, letter bins overflowing, servers jammed with e-mail.
This proposal attracted little attention at first, overshadowed as it was by the clamor over trips on corporate jets and golfing excursions to Scotland. But in recent weeks, it has provoked a lot of noise from outside groups, ranging from the free-speech group American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Concerned Women for America. They have proved formidable enough that leading Republican senators distanced themselves from the amendment last week to the point where the provision's survival is doubtful.
The tempest once again laid bare a conflict seemingly inherent in the pairing of money and politics: public disclosure versus free speech.
The proposal, contends Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, suggests that ''you're not free to be a Tom Paine pamphleteer unless you notify the government of who you're talking to, and what you're saying, and what it costs.'' Quite a few groups on the left object on similar grounds, saying that grassroots lobbying reflects a fundamental right of citizens to petition their government. In a letter to senators last week, the A.C.L.U. wrote, ''It is well settled that lobbying, which embodies the separate and distinct political freedoms of petitioning, speech and assembly, enjoys the highest constitutional protection.'' Citing Supreme Court precedents, it said that ''petitioning the government is 'core political speech,' for which First Amendment protection is 'at its zenith.' ''
This particular measure is an outgrowth of the Jack Abramoff scandal, in which ghost foundations were used to funnel money from Indian tribes into lobbying and perks. Other examples of manufactured grassroots campaigns include a senior citizens' coalition for drug companies in the Medicare prescription debate and the ''Harry and Louise'' health care campaign financed by the insurance industry.
The amendment, sponsored by the Democratic senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and Carl Levin of Michigan, would require disclosure within 45 days of retaining a lobbying group for big rallying projects. The rule would apply to campaigns that spend $25,000 in three months or $100,000 in a year, and recruit more than 500 people to contact government officials on a position.
Prof. James A. Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University and a lobbying expert who favors disclosure rules, estimates that billions are spent on grassroots lobbying, possibly more than on direct lobbying. Other supporters also emphasize that there is no requirement to disclose individual donors.
''We're not asking grassroots lobbyists to do anything that we have not asked direct lobbyists to do,'' said Leslie J. Phillips, a spokeswoman for Mr. Lieberman. The argument ''does not hold because we are not in any way restricting their activities.''
An added benefit, said Donald Tobin, an associate professor at Ohio State University's law school, who specializes in election law, is that ''disclosure is an important tool to expose government corruption.''
If that's the case, some groups argue they're the wrong target. In the absence of an established record of corruption or abuse, mandating disclosure is too burdensome for nonprofit groups, said Marvin J. Johnson, legislative counsel for the A.C.L.U. It doesn't meet the constitutional test, he said, which requires that the government show a compelling interest to impose limits on speech.
Congress should first rein in its excesses, and should not assume, the groups say, that voters, even if coaxed into action, were insincere or dumbly manipulated by a lobbying machine.
Kerri Houston, vice president of policy for Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative think tank, criticized senators for trespassing outside their backyard. ''They're arresting the neighbors, not the burglar,'' she said, noting remarks by some proponents at Senate hearings who found callers' views annoying. ''Is that the real reason that we're having grassroots restrictions, is because they find the constituent obnoxious?''
With the Senate's appetite for major lobbying restrictions waning last week, the grassroots provision is even more likely to be subsumed, if not jettisoned, when debate resumes over travel and enforcement rules. The House has paid little attention to the issue; given that representatives seek re-election every two years , they know too well how quickly a constituent's complaint can morph in the polling booth to a rebellious refrain: ''Can you hear me now?''