AstroTurf Organizations

AstroTurf® is a brand of bright green artificial grass (fake grass) used in sports stadiums, so the term AstroTurf organization refers to a group that fakes popular grassroots opinion or behavior while disguising a hidden agenda. Astroturfing may be undertaken by an individual pushing a personal agenda, such as being the center of attention, or by a highly organized professional group with financial backing from large corporations or industry groups.

After the 81^st legislative session, HOT exposed two consumer groups that functioned as AstroTurf organizations either unwittingly or intentionally. They appeared on the surface to represent homeowner issues but instead promoted legislation that would have been very bad for the public. Their “compromise bill” would also have strengthened the stranglehold builders had on consumers in defective homes. If they didn’t know how bad the builder-sponsored legislation was, HOT questions their competency and effectiveness. If they did, we question their motives. In any event, it's clear that the plight of Texas homeowners has gotten worse in each session under their watch.

Why would any “consumer group” promote public policies that hurt consumers?

They can UNWITTINGLY do this by not fully understanding the legislative process, the legal terminology embedded in deceptively-written legislation, or the often-negative effects of their own actions. Such actions can include non-strategic or ill-conceived letter writing campaigns, publicity stunts, protests, testimony and grandstanding. While making threats, getting arrested, and planting fake bombs can get media attention, for example, they seldom earn the respect of legislators and can do more harm to the cause than good.

 

Or they can INTENTIONALLY do this, seeming to operate in the public’s interest while actually serving the goals of a special interest, with actions encouraged by (or even funded by) that special interest.

Special interest industry lobbyists often employ AstroTurf organizations to make a narrow corporate agenda appear to have broad-based support among voters. They also hire academic researchers to "study" issues and publish reports that seem to have balance and credibility. These reports often reference other sponsored reports, but look deeper and you'll uncover their hidden agendas. Here are just a few examples from many:

• American Crossroads (www.americancrossroads.org)
  This well-funded nonprofit organization says they're about renewing America’s commitment to "individual liberty, limited government, free enterprise and a strong national defense," but where does the bulk of their money come from? There's a reason they don't disclose that.
• American Legislative Exchange Council (www.alec.org)
  ALEC is a membership based organization that publishes model legislation, including a Municipal Competition Act, which bans municipalities from installing broadband services that might compete with private service companies, even if they don't yet offer such service. What is not disclosed is that ALEC members include the incumbent carriers that will benefit from such a ban, and only these members can view this model legislation.
• Cato Institute (www.cato.org)
  Cato promotes itself as a non-profit public policy research foundation that supports limited government. In order to appear independent, they accept no government funding, but they do get contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals. Some of their biggest contributors include Comcast, Freedom Communications, SBC, Time Warner and Verizon.
• Heartland Institute (www.alec.org)
  Heartland pretends to be scientific and objective but really represents industry clients, such as in their 2/1/2005 article, "Why Muni Wi-Fi Is a False Hope." The report is designed to scare consumers and policy makers with FUD (fear, uncertainty & doubt), saying that Muni Wi-Fi is yet another example of "government spending taxpayer dollars in questionable ways, using money they probably don’t have on a project that probably won’t work."
• New Millennium Research Council (www.newmillenniumresearch.org)
  In a report titled "Not in the Public Interest - The Myth of Municipal Wi-Fi Networks," the NMRC pretends to be unbiased but is anything but. NMRC is actually a subsidiary of Issue Dynamics, Inc. (IDI), a consumer and public affairs consulting firm that promotes solutions to complex policy issues, representing a client list that includes Ameritech,  BellSouth, Comcast, Pacific Bell, Qwest, SBC, Sprint, U.S. West, Verizon, and Verizon Wireless.
• Progress and Freedom Foundation (www.pff.org)
  PFF describes itself as "a market-oriented think tank that studies the digital revolution and its impact for public policy." They too have published reports that promote an agenda of clients such as Bell South, Comcast, Nextel, Qwest, SBC, Sprint, Time Warner, and Verizon.