Attack of the Living Front Groups: PR Watch Offers Help to Unmask Corporate Tricksters

front groupsFake "grassroots" groups have started springing up like toadstools after a rain, and this time they're coming at us from every angle: they're on TV, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube: "Americans for Prosperity," "FACES of Coal, "The "Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights," "Americans Against Food Taxes," the "60 Plus Association," "Citizens for Better Medicare," "Patients First" ... It's making our heads spin! Issues affecting some of the country's biggest industries, like health insurance reform, a proposal to tax sodas and sugary drinks, and the FDA's possible reconsideration of the plastic additive Bisphenol A, have boosted corporate astroturfing up to a dizzying pace. With all these corporate fronts coming out of the woodwork, how can citizens tell true grassroots organizations from corporate fronts operated by highly-paid PR and lobbying firms? Here are some tips to help readers spot this kind of big-business hanky-panky.

What is a "front group," really?

A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. The front group is perhaps the most easily recognized use of the third party propaganda technique. One of the best examples is Rick Berman's Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), which claims that its mission is to defend the rights of consumers to choose to eat, drink and smoke as they please. In reality, though, CCF is a front group for the tobacco, restaurant and alcoholic beverage industries, which provide all or most of its funding. Not all organizations that engage in manipulative efforts to shape public opinion can be classified as "front groups," however. The now-defunct Tobacco Institute was a highly deceptive industry trade and lobbying group, but it didn't hide the fact that it represented the tobacco industry. There are also varying degrees of concealment. The Global Climate Coalition didn't hide the fact that its funding came from oil and coal companies, but nevertheless its name alone is sufficiently misleading that it can reasonably be considered a front group.

The shadowy way front groups operate makes it difficult to know whether or not a seemingly independent grassroots group is really representing some other entity. Thus, citizen smokers' rights groups and organizations of bartenders or restaurant workers working against smoking bans are sometimes characterized as front groups for the tobacco industry, but it is possible that some of these groups are self-initiated (although the tobacco industry has been known to use restaurant groups as fronts for its own interests).

Look for signs of astroturfing on the Web:

  • Does the organization list a phone number and street address on their Web site? If no address or phone numbers are shown, be skeptical. If they do list an address, note where it is. If it's in Washington, D.C., Google the address and/or the phone number to see what other companies or organizations share, or have shared, that same address or phone number. D.C. is home to many of the nation's largest professional PR and lobbying groups, and often one firm will operate several front groups with different corporate interests out of the same address. If you find other groups share the same address, look up the groups on to see if they are front groups or not;
  • If the group's Web site only offers a contact form to fill in and no street address, telephone number or email links to staff members, be suspicious. Likewise if the site offers a way to donate by credit card, but gives no fixed office to which you can mail a check, be suspicious;
  • Check to see if the site lists the names of the group's directors or staff. If names are listed, search Google Web, Google News and SourceWatch for the names of the top people running the group, and see where else they have worked, and if any news articles give hints about their corporate ties; and
  • Does the organization have a bus that tours the country promoting a certain point of view? Buses take money to operate, and a corporation may be footing the bill. Ask who's funding the bus.

Characteristics of a corporate front group

A front group typically has some, but not necessarily all, of the following characteristics:

  • Avoids mentioning its main sources of funding. Note that this does not necessarily mean absolute concealment of sponsorship. Some front groups go to great lengths to conceal their origins, funders and personnel links to sponsors. However, the likelihood that these will be exposed anyway, with embarrassing consequences for a group's credibility, has led many companies and their sponsored organizations to opt for a strategy of selective disclosure, in which funders are mentioned in an annual report or other obscure publication, but are not mentioned in the organization's most common communications that reach the largest audience, like newsletters or Web sites;
  • Is set up, operated or maintained by another organization, particularly a public relations, grassroots campaigning, polling or surveying firm or consultancy;
  • Engages in actions that consistently and conspicuously benefit a third party, such as a company, industry or political candidate;
  • Effectively shields a third party from liability/responsibility/culpability by making statements a corporation cannot make, but that nevertheless advance a specific corporate interest;
  • Re-focuses debate about an issue onto a new or suspiciously unrelated topic, (for example, casting the secondhand smoke as an issue of property rights);
  • Has a misleading, feel-good name that disguises its real agenda, such as the National Wetlands Coalition, which opposed policies to protect U.S. wetlands, or Citizens for a Free Kuwait, which purported to represent U.S. citizens but was actually funded almost entirely by the royal family of Kuwait. Sometimes the name of a front group might seem to suggest academic or political neutrality ("Consumers' Research," "American Policy Center"), while in fact it consistently turns out opinions, research, surveys, reports, polls and other declarations that benefit the interests of a company, industry or political candidate;
  • Consists of a group of vocal, "independent," "esteemed" academic "experts" who go on national tours, put on media events, give press conferences, seminars, workshops, and give editorial board meetings around the country, etc., who ordinarily would not seem to have the budget or financial means to carry out such events; and
  • Touts repeatedly in its own communications, and is touted by third parties, as "independent," "esteemed," "respected," "nonpartisan,""credible", etc.

An organization that only has a few of these characteristics may not be a true front group. For example, the tobacco industry has given funding to youth organizations such as the Jaycees and 4-H clubs, which serves a public relations goal by helping the industry cultivate an image of corporate responsibility. This PR tactic is an example of the third party technique, and organizations that trade their reputations for corporate funding may be naive, gullible or opportunistic, but this in itself would not make them a front group.

Rolling back the astroturf

Looking beyond a feel-good name, like Americans-for-Something-Sane-and-Sensible, and examine what a group really seeks to do is just the first step in countering the proliferation of astroturf groups.

More importantly, you -- along with other curious citizens -- can help document in our collaborative SourceWatch wiki site groups that you consider could be front groups. Many of the profiles on front groups in SourceWatch started out as a simple one or two sentence article created by citizens who were unsure whether a group was legitimate or not. As profiles expand, it becomes easier to make an informed judgement on the origins and agenda of a group. Perhaps just as importantly, a profile created in SourceWatch on a newly founded front group is likely to quickly be in the top results of as web search, enabling web-connected citizens and journalists to access referenced material on what is known about a group.

If you have never added material to SourceWatch before, don't worry! Our regular editors are at hand to help get you started. If you have never edited a SourceWatch article, you can register here, and learn more about adding information to the site here, here and here.

As people get more savvy about recognizing corporate front group activity, PR and lobbying firms can respond in one of two ways. They could opt to go to even greater lengths to obscure the origins and funding of groups they form. Or, they could abandon the practice of creating astroturf groups because increased citizen journalism meant that groups were being exposed so soon after they were created that clients decided to save their dollars and spare themselves the embarrassment.

Documenting the activities of front groups is perhaps the single most important step in helping roll back the rise of astroturf groups.


You bring up a good point! It's not popular right now to target the pharmaceutical corporations because they use pathos very successfully to make people feel guilty for opposing them, suggesting that opposing the corporations or over-prescription of drugs creates a negative stigma for people with emotional or mental disorders. It's much the same as the pro-war propaganda suggesting that one cannot oppose war without hating soldiers or that one can't argue alternate actions and retain patriotism.

I agree, pharmaceutical corporations do a good job of making us feel guilty. It also doesn’t help that any sort of negative stigma becomes a powerful deterrent to those fighting the "good fight." Fronts like these are almost impossible to overcome from a social stand point. -Roger, <a href="">CAAS</a>