Activist Inc.: Professional Agitators can't claim to be 'grassroots"

Activist Inc.
Professional agitators can't claim to be a "grassroots" movement anymore.

It seems every time you read a story about a domestic conflict--whether it's drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, free trade clashes, or tobacco litigation--two adjectives always describe the opponents. On one side are the "grassroots" organizations--disorganized, under-funded, struggling folk willing to live hand-to-mouth in the name of their noble goal. On the other are "powerful" corporate and political interests--fat-cats with loads of money, contacts and discipline, willing to use any tactic to get their way.

David-and-Goliath descriptions add the touch of drama, which is no doubt why journalists continue with the "grassroots-powerful" routine. Yet even as they do, the rest of America is cottoning on to the fact that such descriptions are not only outdated--they're completely backward. These days, most "grassroots" groups are far better moneyed, networked and operated than many corporations and political lobbies. And they've become far more ruthless in accomplishing their goals.

Up to now, it's been pretty difficult to clearly illustrate their strength. Companies--especially "powerful" public ones--are required to keep their operations transparent and regularly make public their financial records. Activist groups, even though most receive non-profit status and must file with the IRS, have been reluctant to let anyone see their records. But now, thanks to a new Web site called ActivistCash.com, the average U.S. citizen can finally get the lowdown on the financial and organizational operations of many major activist groups in the country.

ActivistCash.com, unveiled yesterday, is run by the Guest Choice Network, an organization of 30,000 restaurant and tavern operators. The Guest Choice Network has become a front line defense against today's nanny culture. Or, as its first Web site--nannyculture.com--puts it: "Unofficially we include anybody who stands up against the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, vegetarian activists and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.' " The site offers, among other things, information on junk science and food scares.

Now, however, the group has gone further. Over the past year it has used freedom of information laws to get the IRS documents of the country's leading activist groups--more than 100,000 pages of information the activist hope Americans won't see. "What we uncovered is an intricate, organized, well-funded web of what you might call the "'new left,' " says John Doyle, the group's communications director. "It allows a person to finally link the environmental activists with the animal rights activists with the anti-corporate activists, and see that they all operate together in the anti-choice arena."

All of the information listed is an eye-opener, but a couple of things stick out. The first is the degree to which the top management of most of these organizations are engaged in a lovefest. ActivistCash.com not only provides financial records, but the names of trustees, directors and management. Click on these names, and you are transported to the many other organizations the activist in question is involved with.
A sample? According to ActivistCash.com, Frances Beinecke is the executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, sits on the board of the World Resources Institute and is co-founder of the New York League of Conservation Voters; she also held positions at the Wilderness Foundation and the Adirondack Council. SeaWeb, originally a "project" of the NRDC, was spun off, but still has ties to Ms. Beinecke's group. And Ms. Beinecke's NRDC shares a public relations company, Fenton Communications, with both Greenpeace and the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Perhaps the other major revelation of ActivistCash.com is the link between established charitable foundations and controversial activist groups. Many of the country's larger and more prestigious foundations--from the Pew Charitable Trusts, to the Packard Foundation--have images of high-minded organizations that promote "worthy" projects in culture and education. As ActivistCash.com shows, though, many are giving millions to the more extreme activist organizations, not to mention promoting such views themselves.

"The people who are in charge of the giving at Pew and Ford know exactly what they are trying to accomplish," says Mr. Doyle. "But we're not sure a lot of companies and suppliers realize how out of tune these groups' world view is with their own."

Beyond these wide trends, though, the site offers a gold mine of other nuggets. To offer just a few:

• How's this for a link? On one hand we have People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA's president is Ingrid Newkirk, a woman known for comments such as: "Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses." PETA has come under criticism for its ad campaigns, which, in one instance, went so far as to gloat over Rudy Giuliani's prostate cancer (not that this has stopped nearly a dozen "established" foundations from giving PETA large grants). The group's extreme views--which include no animal experiments, no milking of cows and no meat-eating--are widely known and largely reviled.

One the other hand we have the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, run by Neal Barnard. Its Web site describes itself as a "nonprofit" supported by "5,000 physicians" and it puts out a quarterly magazine called "Good Medicine." Its site is full of dietary recommendations as well as the latest "health" news. For example: "Studies show high intakes of dairy products increase prostate cancer," "School lunches fail to make the grade, say doctors: too much fat, meat, chicken, cheese." Any average person landing on the PCRM site might well think it a responsible health industry group.

Now take a closer look at both groups. According to ActivistCash.com, PCRM's Mr. Barnard and PETA's Ms. Newkirk have something in common: They are the co-directors of a third group, the multimillion-dollar Foundation to Support Animal Protection. In 1999, Ms. Newkirk's PETA gave this third group nearly $1 million; FSAP in turn gave Mr. Barnard's PCRM as much as $432,000. Take a look at PCRM's "health" prescriptions again and it's clear they are doctored up PETA rhetoric: Every one suggests that eating animal or dairy products is bad for you.

• According to the site, the Ben & Jerry's Foundation of ice cream fame, has given $10,000 to Mothers for Natural Law--a group radically opposed to anything but organic food, and linked to the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (leader of the Transcendental Meditation movement). B&J also gave $100,000 to the Ruckus Society, a group that trains anticorporate radicals to rappel down buildings and hang themselves from billboards, who were among the primary movers and shakers at the Seattle World Trade Organization riots.

• The Action on Smoking and Health (ASH, for short) is one of the nation's largest anti-smoking organizations. On the first page of its Web site, it says: "ASH is entirely supported by tax-deductible contributions from people like you . . ." But according to ActivistCash.com, the F.M. Kirby Foundation has contributed $440,000 to ASH in recent years.

Luckily, people other than industry groups are also beginning to catch on to these "grassroots" organizations. Earlier this year, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Tom Knudsen, a reporter for the Sacramento Bee, wrote a series of articles about the new big business face of the environmental movement.

Mr. Knudsen describes the reaction of a visitor the first time he stepped into the headquarters of the Wilderness Society: "It was like a giant corporation. Floor after floor after floor, just like Exxon or AT&T." He details the million-dollar fundraisers, the six-figure salaries, and the accounting shenanigans. But he also describes where all the money goes: most of it to lobbying, lawsuits and . . . more fund-raising.

And so the next time Americans get a flyer or a phone-call asking for a donation, they'd do well to spend a few minutes on ActivistCash.com.

Ms. Strassel is an assistant features editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. Her column appears on alternate Thursdays.

Interesting article about the Watermelon (Green outside, Red inside) groups of the VLWC.

Couple of comments: Note how kindly these groups are treated by the mainstream media.

Wonder how many are sucking at the goverment teat?

How many are extorting money from the corporations they are seeking to destroy?

We focus on crooks like Jesse Jackson, but he is the tip of the iceburg.

How many of these groups supported the Clinton/Gore criminals?

How many of these groups run ads supporting Rat candidates?

These days, most "grassroots" groups are far better moneyed, networked and operated than many corporations and political lobbies.

Microsoft is real good at this. when they drum up "grassroots" support for their side of the anti-trust case, its widely referred to as "Astro-turfing".

Wonder how many are sucking at the goverment teat?

I don't know about alot of them, but I do know that ANR the anti-smoker group, gets lots of money from the government dollars.

How many are extorting money from the corporations they are seeking to destroy?

Everyone of the anti-smoker groups is doing it.

We focus on crooks like Jesse Jackson, but he is the tip of the iceburg.

That's an understatement.

How many of these groups supported the Clinton/Gore criminals?

all of the anti-smoker groups did.

How many of these groups run ads supporting Rat candidates?

probably a lot of them

When the pubbies won congress in 94 there was an attemt by a congressman from OK ? (Ishtook?) to defund these leftist NGo's. It failed and the rapist would have vetoed it anyway. If we ever get control of the exec branch and both houses of congress this would be something to do. This would hurt the rats chances of getting elected. The press would whine but guys like O'Reilly would make a stink over the scum running these tax exempt group living high on the hog and taking tax dollars from working people.

I don't know if you're right, about guys like O'Reilly.

I think in situations like this that type is just as bad as the rest of the lamestream media.

I'm not trying to get into an argument about smoking, it just happens that those are the groups with who's financial ties I am most familiar. The media is well aware of these ties, but choose to ignore them.

Every time I attempt to speak out about the problem I am immediately called on the carpet about who is paying me (the answer is no one); however when I question whoever is questioning me and get the same response, they are believed and I am not.

I had it happen to me on live TV - so I know what I'm talking about.

Getting back to your point -- Groups like the Guest Choice Network have been pilorried by every one of the groups they are fighting - all the nannies - for being schills of this corporation or that industry.

Unfortunately the nannies are the ones with the power and the money and so they get the ear of thosde that matter, not just the politicians and the media, but the sheeple who are just getting one side of the various different issues.

Thanks for this post.

Last night I got an email with two great websites. One is new and was cited in this article.

I posted a thread about these two sites. We can go there to find out who is really financing these Anti American so called charities.

Link to these two sites: (Two sites showing where Anti American Phoney Charities get funding)

This site is hypocritical. They attack other organizations for their fundraising and personnel. Yet, the ActivistCash.com gives no indication of who runs the group or where their money comes from.

They do share an office suite with the American Beverage Institute and the Employment Policies Institute (which opposes the minimum wage).

Yeah, talk about your grassroots organizations!

They identify themselves as "an organization of 30,000 restaurant and tavern operators." They do not indicate who is providing their funding or who runs the organization. The activist organizations may also truthfully indicate how large their membership is, but as this article points out, that is not the whole story.

"These days, most "grassroots" groups are far better moneyed, networked and operated than many corporations and political lobbies." There is no way of knowing unless we know how well moneyed, networked, and operated the lobbyists are.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.