Inside the Surveillance State

 There appears to be no end to the appetite for data to be stored and mined, and all sorts of agencies want a share of the action.

Ten Years Later: Surveillance in the “Homeland” is a collaborative project with Truthout and ACLU Massachusetts.

How little – yet how much – has changed in the last 40 years. The COINTELPRO papers sound distinctly 21st century as they detail the monitoring of perceived threats to “national security” by the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency (NSA), Secret Service, and the military, as well as the intelligence bureaucracy’s war on First Amendment protest activity.

The Church Committee investigation concluded in 1976 that the “unexpressed major premise of the programs was that a law enforcement agency has the duty to do whatever is necessary to combat perceived threats to the existing social and political order.”

In addition to massive surveillance, assassinations and dirty tricks “by any means necessary” included the creation of NSA “watch lists” of Americans ranging “from members of radical political groups, to celebrities, to ordinary citizens involved in protests against their government,” with names submitted by the FBI, Secret Service, military, CIA, and Defense Intelligence Agency. The secret lists, which included people whose activities “may result in civil disturbances or otherwise subvert the national security of the US,” were used by the NSA to extract information of “intelligence value” from its stream of intercepted communications.

Read more: Inside the Surveillance State

Cointelpro

Infiltration by Agents or Informers

Agents are law enforcement officers disguised as activists.

Informers are non-agents who provide information to a law enforcement or intelligence agency. They may be recruited from within a group or sent in by an agency, or they may be disaffected former members or supporters.

Infiltrators are agents or informers who work in a group or community under the direction of a law enforcement or intelligence agency. During the 60s the FBI had to rely on informers (who are less well-trained and harder to control) because it had very few Black, Hispanic, or female agents, and its strict dress and grooming code left white male agents unable to look like activists. As a modern equal opportunity employer, today’s FBI has fewer such limitations.

What They Do

Some informers and infiltrators quietly provide information while keeping a low profile and doing whatever is expected of group members. Others attempt to discredit a target and disrupt its work. They may spread false rumors and make unfounded accusations to provoke or exacerbate tensions and splits. They may urge divisive proposals, sabotage important activities and resources, or operate as “provocateurs” who lead zealous activists into unnecessary danger. In a demonstration or other confrontation with police, such an agent may break discipline and call for actions which would undermine unity and detract from tactical focus.

Infiltration As a Source of Distrust and Paranoia

While individual agents and informers aid the government in a variety of specific ways, the general use of infiltrators serves a very special and powerful strategic function. The fear that a group may be infiltrated often intimidates people from getting more involved. It can give rise to a paranoia which makes it difficult to build the mutual trust which political groups depend on. This use of infiltration, enhanced by covertly-initiated rumors that exaggerate the extent to which a particular movement or group has been penetrated, is recommended by the manuals used to teach counterinsurgency in the US and Western Europe.

Cover Manipulation to Make a Legitimate Activist Appear to Be an Agent

An actual agent will often point the finger at a genuine, non-collaborating and highly valued group member, claiming that he or she is the infiltrator. The same effect, known as a “snitch jacket”, has been achieved by planting forged documents which appear to be communications between an activist and the FBI, or by releasing for no other apparent reason one of a group of activists who were arrested together. Another method used under COINTELPRO was to arrange for some activists, arrested under one pretext or another, to hear over the police radio a phony broadcast which appeared to set up a secret meeting between the police and someone from their group.

Guidelines for Coping with Infiltration

1. Establish a process through which anyone who suspects an informer (or other form of covert intervention) can express his or her fears without scaring others. Experienced people assigned this responsibility can do a great deal to help a group maintain its morale and focus while, at the same time, centrally consolidating information and deciding how to use it. This plan works best when accompanied by group discussion of the danger of paranoia, so that everyone understands and follows the established procedure.

2. To reduce vulnerability to paranoia and “snitch jackets”, and to minimize diversion from your main work, it generally is best if you do not attempt to expose a suspected agent or informer unless you are certain of their role (For instance, they surface to make an arrest, testify as a government witness or in some other way admit their identity). Under most circumstances, an attempted exposure will do more harm than the infiltrator’s continued presence. This is especially true if you can discreetly limit the suspect’s access to funds, financial records, mailing lists, discussions of possible law violations, meetings that plan criminal defense strategy, and similar opportunities.

3. Deal openly and directly with the form and content of what anyone says and does, whether the person is a suspected agent, has emotional problems, or is simply a sincere, but naive or confused person new to the work.

4. Once an agent or informer has been definitely identified, alert other groups and communities by means of photographs, a description of their methods of operation, etc. In the 60s, some agents managed even after their exposure in one community to move on and repeat their performance in a number of others.

5. Be careful to avoid pushing a new or hesitant member to take risks beyond what that person is ready to handle, particularly in situations which could result in arrest and prosecution. People in this position have proved vulnerable to recruitment as informers.

Other Forms of Deception

Bogus leaflets, pamphlets, etc.:

COINTELPRO documents show that the FBI routinely put out phony leaflets, posters, pamphlets, etc. to discredit its targets. In one instance, agents revised a children’s coloring book which the Black Panther Party had rejected as anti-white and gratuitously violent, and then distributed a cruder version to backers of the Party’s program of free breakfasts for children, telling them the book was being used in the program.

False media stories:

The FBI’s documents expose collusion by reporters and news media that knowingly published false and distorted material prepared by Bureau agents. One such story had Jean Seberg, a noticeably pregnant white film star active in anti-racist causes, carrying the child of a prominent Black leader. Seberg’s white husband, the actual father, has sued the FBI as responsible for her resulting stillbirth, breakdown, and suicide.

Forged correspondence:

Former employees have confirmed that the FBI and CIA have the capacity to produce “state of the art” forgery. The US Senate’s investigation of COINTELPRO uncovered a series of letters forged in the name of an intermediary between the Black Panther Party’s national office and Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver, in exile in Algeria. The letters proved instrumental in inflaming intra-party rivalries that erupted into the bitter public split that shattered the Party in the winter of 1971.

Anonymous letters and telephone calls:

During the 60s, activists received a steady flow of anonymous letters and phone calls which turn out to have been from government agents. Some threatened violence. Others promoted racial divisions and fears. Still others charged various leaders with collaboration, corruption, sexual affairs with other activists’ mates, etc. As in the Seberg incident, inter-racial sex was a persistent theme. The husband of one white woman involved in a bi-racial civil rights group received the following anonymous letter authored by the FBI:

“Look, man, I guess your old lady doesn’t get enough at home or she wouldn’t be shucking and jiving with our Black Men in ACTION, you dig? Like all she wants to integrate is the bedroom and us Black Sisters ain’t gonna take no second best from our men. So lay it on her man — or get her the hell off [NAME].”
–A Soul Sister

False rumors:

Using infiltrators, journalists and other contacts, the Bureau circulated slanderous, disruptive rumors through political movements and the communities in which they worked.

Other misinformation:

A favorite FBI tactic uncovered by Senate investigators was to misinform people that a political meeting or event had been cancelled. Another was to offer nonexistent housing at phony addresses, stranding out-of-town conference attendees who naturally blamed those who had organized the event. FBI agents also arranged to transport demonstrators in the name of a bogus bus company which pulled out at the last minute. Such “dirty tricks” interfered with political events and turned activists against each other.

Fronts for the FBI:

COINTELPRO documents reveal that a number of 60s political groups and projects were actually set up and operated by the FBI.

One, “Grupo pro-Uso Voto”, was used to disrupt the fragile unity developing in 1967 among groups seeking Puerto Rico’s independence from the US. The genuine proponents of independence had joined together to boycott a US-administered referendum on the island’s status. They argued that voting under conditions of colonial domination could serve only to legitimize US rule, and that no vote could be fair while the US controlled the island’s economy, media, schools, and police. The bogus group, pretending to support independence, broke ranks and urged independistas to take advantage of the opportunity to register their opinion at the polls.

Since FBI front groups are basically a means for penetrating and disrupting political movements, it is best to deal with them on the basis of the Guidelines for Coping with Infiltration (below).

Confront what a suspect group says and does, but avoid public accusations unless you have definite proof. If you do have such proof, share it with everyone affected.

Guidelines for Coping with Other Forms of Deception:

1. Don’t add unnecessarily to the pool of information that government agents use to divide political groups and turn activists against each other. They thrive on gossip about personal tensions, rivalries and disagreements. The more these are aired in public, or via a telephone which can be tapped or mail which can be opened, the easier it is to exploit a group’s problems and subvert its work (Note that the CIA has the technology to read mail without opening it, and that the telephone network can now be programmed to record any conversation in which specific political terms are used).

2. The best way to reduce tensions and hostilities, and the urge to gossip about them, is to make time for open, honest discussion and resolution of “personal” as well as “political” issues.

3. Don’t accept everything you hear or read. Check with the supposed source of the information before you act on it. Personal communication among estranged activists, however difficult or painful, could have countered many FBI operations which proved effective in the 60s.

4. When you hear a negative, confusing or potentially harmful rumor, don’t pass it on. Instead, discuss it with a trusted friend or with the people in your group who are responsible for dealing with covert intervention.

5. Verify and double-check all arrangements for housing, transportation, meeting rooms, and so forth.

6. When you discover bogus materials, false media stories, etc. publicly disavow them and expose the true sources, insofar as you can.

Harassment, Intimidation and Violence:

Pressure through employers, landlords, etc.

COINTELPRO documents reveal frequent overt contacts and covert manipulation (false rumors, anonymous letters and telephone calls) to generate pressure on activists from their parents, landlords, employers, college administrators, church superiors, welfare agencies, credit bureaus, licensing authorities, and the like.

Agents’ reports indicate that such intervention denied 60s activists any number of foundation grants and public speaking engagements. It also cost underground newspapers most of their advertising revenues, when major record companies were persuaded to take their business elsewhere. It may underlie recent steps by insurance companies to cancel policies held by churches giving sanctuary to refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala.

Burglary

Former operatives have confessed to thousands of “black bag jobs” in which FBI agents broke into movement offices to steal, copy, or destroy valuable papers, wreck equipment, or plant drugs.

Vandalism

FBI infiltrators have admitted countless other acts of vandalism, including the fire which destroyed the Watts Writers Workshop’s multimillion-dollar ghetto cultural center in 1973. Late 60s FBI and police raids laid waste to movement offices across the country, destroying precious printing presses, typewriters, layout equipment, research files, financial records, and mailing lists.

Other direct interference

To further disrupt opposition movements, frighten activists, and get people upset with each other, the FBI tampered with organizational mail, so it came late or not at all. It also resorted to bomb threats and similar “dirty tricks”.

Conspicuous surveillance

The FBI and police blatantly watch activists’ homes, follow their cars, tap phones, open mail and attend political events. The object is not to collect information (which is done surreptitiously), but to harass and intimidate.

Attempted interviews

Agents have extracted damaging information from activists who don’t known they have a legal right to refuse to talk, or who think they can outsmart the FBI. COINTELPRO directives recommend attempts at interviews throughout political movements to “enhance the paranoia endemic in these circles” and “get the point that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox.”

Grand juries

Unlike the FBI, the Grand Jury has legal power to make you answer its questions. Those who refuse, and are required to accept immunity from use of their testimony against them, can be jailed for contempt of court (Such “use immunity” enables prosecutors to get around the constitutional protection against self-incrimination).

The FBI and US Department of Justice have manipulated this process to turn the grand jury into an instrument of political repression. Frustrated by jurors’ consistent refusal to convict activists of overtly political crimes, they convened over 100 grand juries between 1970 and 1973 and subpoenaed more than 1,000 activists from the Black, Puerto Rican, student, women’s and anti-war movements. Supposed pursuit of fugitives and “terrorists” was the usual pretext. Many targets were so terrified that they dropped out of political activity. Others were jailed without any criminal charge or trial, in what amounts to a US version of the political internment procedures employed in South Africa and Northern Ireland.

False arrest and prosecution

COINTELPRO directives cite the Philadelphia FBI’s success in having local militants “arrested on every
possible charge until they could no longer make bail” and “spent most of the summer in jail.” Though the bulk of the activists arrested in this manner were eventually released, some were convicted on serious charges on the basis of perjured testimony by FBI agents, or by coworkers who the Bureau had threatened or bribed.

The object was not only to remove experienced organizers from their communities and to divert scarce
resources into legal defense, but even more to discredit entire movements by portraying their leaders as vicious criminals. Two victims of such frame-ups, Native American activist Leonard Peltier and 1960s Black Panther official Elmer “Geronimo” Pratt, have finally gained court hearings on new trial motions.

Others currently struggling to re-open COINTELPRO convictions include Richard Marshall of the American Indian Movement and jailed black Panthers Herman Bell, Anthony Bottom, Albert Washington (the “NY3″), and Richard “Dhoruba” Moore.

Intimidation

One COINTELPRO communiqué urged that “The Negro youths and moderates must be made to understand that if they succumb to revolutionary teaching, they will be dead revolutionaries.”

Others reported use of threats (anonymous and overt) to terrorize activists, driving some to abandon promising projects and others to leave the country. During raids on movement offices, the FBI and police routinely roughed up activists and threatened further violence. In August, 1970, they forced the entire staff of the Black Panther office in Philadelphia to march through the streets naked.

Instigation of violence

The FBI’s infiltrators and anonymous notes and phone calls incited violent rivals to attack Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and other targets. Bureau records also reveal maneuvers to get the Mafia to move against such activists as black comedian Dick Gregory.

A COINTELPRO memo reported that “shootings, beatings and a high degree of unrest continue to prevail in the ghetto area of southeast San Diego… it is felt that a substantial amount of the unrest is directly attributable to this program.”

Covert aid to right-wing vigilantes

In the guise of a COINTELPRO against “white hate groups,” the FBI subsidized, armed, directed and protected the Ku Klux Klan and other right-wing groups, including a “Secret Army Organization” of California ex-Minutemen who beat up Chicano activists, tore apart the offices of the San Diego Street Journal and the Movement for a Democratic Military, and tried to kill a prominent anti-war organizer. Puerto Rican activists suffered similar terrorist assaults from anti-Castro Cuban groups organized and funded by the CIA.

Defectors from a band of Chicago-based vigilantes known as the “Legion of Justice” disclosed that the funds and arms they used to destroy bookstores, film studios, and other centers of opposition had secretly been supplied by members of the Army’s 113th Military Intelligence Group.

Assassination

The FBI and police were implicated directly in murders of Black and Native American leaders. In Chicago, police assassinated Black Panthers Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, using a floor plan supplied by an FBI informer who apparently also had drugged Hampton’s food to make him unconscious during the raid.

FBI records show that this accomplice received a substantial bonus for his services. Despite an elaborate cover-up, a blue-ribbon commission and a US Court of Appeals found the deaths to be the result not of a shootout, as claimed by police, but of a carefully orchestrated, Vietnam-style “search and destroy mission.”

Guidelines for Coping with Harassment, Intimidation Violence

1. Establish security procedures appropriate to your group’s level of activity and discuss them thoroughly with everyone involved. Control access to keys, files, letterhead, funds, financial records, mailing lists, etc. Keep duplicates of valuable documents. Safeguard address books, and do not carry them when arrest is likely.

2. Careful records of break-ins, thefts, bomb threats, raids, arrests, strange phone noises (not always taps or bugs), harassment, etc. will help you to discern patterns and to prepare reports and testimony.

3. Don’t talk to the FBI. Don’t let them in without a warrant. Tell others that they came. Have a lawyer demand an explanation and instruct them to leave you alone.

4. If an activist does talk, or makes some other honest error, explain the harm that could result. But do not attempt to ostracize a sincere person who slips up. Isolation only weakens a person’s ability to resist. It can drive someone out of the movement and even into the arms of the police.

5. If the FBI starts to harass people in your area, alert everyone to refuse to cooperate. Set up community meetings with speakers who have resisted similar harassment elsewhere. Get literature, films, etc. Consider “Wanted” posters with photos of the agents, or guerrilla theater which follows them through the city streets.

6. Make a major issue of crude harassment, such as tampering with your mail. Contact your congressperson. Call the media. Demonstrate at your local FBI office. Turn the attack into an opportunity for explaining how covert intervention threatens fundamental human rights.

7. Many people find it easier to tell an FBI agent to contact their lawyer than to refuse to talk. Once a lawyer is involved, the Bureau generally pulls back, since it has lost its power to intimidate. If possible, make arrangements with a local lawyer and let everyone know that agents who visit them can be referred to that lawyer. If your group engages in civil disobedience or finds itself under intense police pressure, start a bail fund, train some members to deal with the legal system, and develop and ongoing relationship with a sympathetic local lawyer.

8. Community education is important, along with legal, financial, child care, and other support for those who protect a movement by refusing to divulge information about it. If a respected activist is subpoenaed for obviously political reasons, consider trying to arrange for sanctuary in a local church or synagogue.

9. While the FBI and police are entirely capable of fabricating criminal charges, any law violations make it easier for them to set you up. The point is not to get so uptight and paranoid that you can’t function, but to make a realistic assessment based on your visibility and other pertinent circumstances.

10. Upon hearing of Fred Hampton’s murder, the Black Panthers in Los Angeles fortified their offices and organized a communications network to alert the community and news media in the event of a raid. When the police did attempt an armed assault four days later, the Panthers were able to hold off the attack until a large community and media presence enabled them to leave the office without casualties. Similar preparation can help other groups that have reason to expect right-wing or police assaults.

11. Make sure your group designates and prepares other members to step in if leaders are jailed or otherwise incapacitated. The more each participant is able to think for herself or himself and take responsibility, the better will be the group’s capacity to cope with crises.

Organizing Public Opposition to Covert Intervention

A Broad-Based Strategy

No one existing political organization or movement is strong enough, by itself, to mobilize the public pressure required to significantly limit the ability of the FBI, CIA and police to subvert our work. Some activists oppose covert intervention because it violates fundamental constitutional rights. Others stress how it weakens and interferes with the work of a particular group or movement. Still others see covert action as part of a political and economic system which is fundamentally flawed. Our only hope is to bring these diverse forces together in a single, powerful alliance.

Such a broad coalition cannot hold together unless it operates with clearly-defined principles. The coalition as a whole will have to oppose covert intervention on certain basic grounds — such as the threat to democracy, civil liberties and social justice, leaving its members free to put forward other objections and analyses in their own names. Participants will need to refrain from insisting that only their views are “politically correct” and that everyone else has “sold out.”

Above all, we will have to resist the government’s maneuvers to divide us by moving against certain groups, while subtly suggesting that it will go easy on the others, if only they dissociate themselves from those under attack. This strategy is evident in the recent Executive Order and Guidelines, which single out for infiltration and disruption people who support liberation movements and governments that defy US hegemony or who entertain the view that it may be at times necessary to break the law in order to effectuate social change.

Diverse Tactics

For maximum impact, local and national coalitions will need a multifaceted approach which effectively
combines a diversity of tactics, including:

1. Investigative research to stay on top of, and document, just what the FBI, CIA, and police are up to.

2. Public education through forums, rallies, radio and TV, literature, film, high school and college curricula, wall posters, guerrilla theater, and whatever else proves interesting and effective.

3. Legislative lobbying against administration proposals to strengthen cover work, cut back public access to information, punish government “whistle-blowers”, etc. Coalitions in some cities and states have won legislative restrictions on surveillance and covert action. The value of such victories will depend on our ability to mobilize continuing, vigilant public pressure for effective enforcement.

4. Support for the victims of covert intervention can reduce somewhat the harm done by the FBI, CIA, and police. Organizing on behalf of grand jury resisters, political prisoners, and defendants in political trials offers a natural forum for public education about domestic covert action.

5. Lawsuits may win financial compensation for some of the people harmed by covert intervention. Covert action suits, which seek a court order (injunction) limiting surveillance and covert action in a particular city or judicial district, have proved a valuable source of information and publicity. They are enormously expensive, however, in terms of time and energy as well as money. Out-of-court settlements in some of these cases have given rise to bitter disputes which split coalitions apart, and any agreement is subject to reinterpretation or modification by increasingly conservative, administration-oriented federal judges.

The US Court of Appeals in Chicago has ruled that the consent decree against the FBI there affects only operations based “solely on the political views of a group or an individual,” for which the Bureau can conjure no pretext of a “genuine concern for law enforcement.”

6. Direct action, in the form of citizens’ arrests, mock trials, picketlines, and civil disobedience, has recently greeted CIA recruiters on a number of college campuses. Although the main focus has been on the Agency’s international crimes, its domestic activities has also received attention. Similar actions might be organized to protest recruitment by the FBI and police, in conjunction with teach-ins and other education about domestic covert action. Demonstrations against Reagan’s attempts to bolster covert intervention, or against particular FBI, CIA or polic operations, could also raise public consciousness and focus activists’ outrage.

Prospects
Previous attempts to mobilize public opposition, especially on a local level, indicate that a broad coalition, employing a multifaceted approach, may be able to impose some limits on the government’s ability to discredit and disrupt our work. It is clear, however, that we currently lack the power to eliminate such intervention. While fighting hard to end domestic covert action, we need also to study the forms it takes and prepare ourselves to cope with it as effectively as we can. Above all, it is essential that we resist the temptation to so preoccupy ourselves with repression that we neglect our main work. Our ability to resist the government’s attacks depends ultimately on the strength of our movements.

Cointelpro History pt1

A brief presentation on the history of Cointelpro - The FBIs program to infiltrate, disrupt and dismantle peaceful dissident groups in America.

Cointelpro History - pt2

Good presentation of the history and current applications of Cointelpro. Cointelpro is the name the FBI called their program of counterintelligence against US based peaceful dissident groups.

US INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES DISINFORMATION TECHNIQUES

COINTELPRO (Counter-Intelligence) Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a leftist Internet forum and of Leftist organizations.
Since the early 1960's the intelligence agencies of the US Government, FBI, CIA, NSA, and now Military Intelligence and the many subcontractors that the US government subcontracts such efforts out to, have been busily engaged the disruption, discrediting and destruction of liberation movements. With the advent of the Internet these techniques of disruption of open freedom seeking liberation movements and in particular, leftist, movements has been intensified and has become a systematic and widespread technique.

Read more: US INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES DISINFORMATION TECHNIQUES

Activist Outed as FBI Informant

Cointelpro is alive and thriving in America. The intelligence agencies infiltrate leftist organizations for the purposes of setting them up for crimes they can then be arrested for. They pose as left or liberal activists and then act as provocateurs to discredit and disempower freedom seeking movements.

Activist Unmasks Himself as Federal Informant

by Colin Moynihan
New York Times

When the scheduled federal trial begins this month for two Texas men who were arrested during the Republican National Convention on charges of making and possessing Molotov cocktails, one of the major witnesses against them will be a community activist who acted as a government informant.

Brandon Darby, an organizer from Austin, Tex., made the news public himself, announcing in an open letter posted on Dec. 30 on Indymedia.org that he had worked as an informant, most recently at last year’s Republican convention in St. Paul.

“The simple truth is that I have chosen to work with the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” wrote Mr. Darby, who gained prominence as a member of Common Ground Relief, a group that helped victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

He added, “I strongly stand behind my choices in this matter.”

Mr. Darby’s revelations caused shock and indignation in the activist community, with people in various groups and causes accusing him of betrayal.

“The emerging truth about Darby’s malicious involvement in our communities is heart-breaking and utterly ground-shattering,” said the Austin Informant Working Group, a collection of activists from the city who worked with Mr. Darby. “Through the history of our struggles for a better world, infiltrators and informants have acted as tools for the forces of misery in disrupting and derailing our movements.”

Mr. Darby’s letter answered lingering questions in the case of the two Texas men, David McKay and Bradley Crowder, both also from Austin. They are scheduled to go on trial in Minnesota on Jan. 26, and if convicted on all counts, each faces a prison sentence of up to 30 years.

Neither the United States attorney’s office in Minnesota nor the F.B.I. would comment on Mr. Darby’s announcement.

“As a matter of policy, we’re not going to confirm or deny the identity of anybody who gives us information confidentially,” said E. K. Wilson, an F.B.I. spokesman in Minnesota.

But in a telephone interview, Mr. Darby said that he had provided information leading to the arrest of Mr. Crowder and Mr. McKay, and that he planned to testify at their trial.

Mr. Darby would not provide details about his undercover activities, but said he had also worked as an informant in cases not involving the convention. He defended his decision to work with the F.B.I. as “a good moral way to use my time,” saying he wanted to prevent violence during the convention at the Xcel Energy Center.

Documents that activists said were given to defense lawyers by the prosecution and printed on F.B.I. letterhead indicated that an informant — now identified as Mr. Darby — carried out a thorough surveillance operation that dated back to at least 18 months before the Republican gathering. He first met Mr. Crowder and Mr. McKay in Austin six months before the convention.

Mr. Darby provided descriptions of meetings with the defendants and dozens of other people in Austin, Minneapolis and St. Paul. He wore recording devices at times, including a transmitter embedded in his belt during the convention. He also went to Minnesota with Mr. Crowder four months before the Republican gathering and gave detailed narratives to law enforcement authorities of several meetings they had with activists from New York, San Francisco, Montana and other places.

One of his last conversations with Mr. McKay ended in an alley in Minneapolis, according to court documents, with Mr. Darby recording Mr. McKay talking about plans to use Molotov cocktails.

The F.B.I. reports mentioned dozens of people, most of whom have not been accused of any crime. In addition to listing biographical and physical particulars, Mr. Darby frequently offered observations on the motives, attitudes and states of mind of activists with whom he dealt.

“Part of what intrigues me is not only how he operates but what is the role of the F.B.I. in how he operates,” said Lisa Fithian, an organizer who is named in the reports. “We don’t know what we’re dealing with here.”

Some former friends of Mr. Darby have denounced him as a provocateur and said he might have enabled or encouraged Mr. Crowder and Mr. McKay to break the law. Mr. Darby denied that.

An F.B.I. agent swore in an affidavit that at one point Mr. McKay acknowledged that he intended to use firebombs. Such devices were never used, and both defendants have pleaded not guilty.

“The claim that the case is solely based on the testimony of informants is simply a wanton and willful untruth,” Mr. Darby said in the interview. “It omits the physical evidence, the confession and possibly the testimony of many others.”

In 2005, Mr. Darby went to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina struck, joining Common Ground Relief as it provided medical attention and helped repair homes. He became a visible member of the group, sometimes acting as a spokesman and appearing on “The Tavis Smiley Show” on PBS.

When The St. Paul Pioneer Press published an article in October that cited an unidentified source who named Mr. Darby as an informant in the case against Mr. Crowder and Mr. McKay, a co-founder of Common Ground, Scott Crow, defended Mr. Darby publicly and warned against “rumors, conjecture and innuendo.”

“I put it all on the line to defend him when accusations first came out,” Mr. Crow said. “Brandon Darby is somebody I had entrusted with my life in New Orleans, and now I feel endangered by him.”

Mr. Darby acknowledged that many people he spied on might not accept his explanation that he was motivated by conscience.

“I am well aware,” he said, “that I’ve stepped outside of accepted behaviors and that I’ve committed a sin in the eyes of many activists.”

Astroturfing - Corporations Creating Fake "Grassroots" Organizations To Support Unpopular Causes

 Campaigns & Elections magazine defines astroturf as a "fake 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, United States Tobacco Company, 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:

• block the transfer of federal licenses that WorldCom uses for its long distance and Internet services by Issue Dynamics Inc. using non-profit groups like the United Church of Christ
• defeat the Clinton administration's proposed health care reform, through a front group called "Rx Partners" created by the Beckel Cowan PR firm, and the Coalition for Health Insurance Choices, created by public relations consultant Blair Childs
• harass environmentalists through the Wise Use movement
• loosen automobile fuel efficience standards
• support clear-cutting American forests, through a front group called Citizens to Protect the Pacific Northwest and Northern California Economy
• oppose restrictions on smoking in public places, through a front group called National Smokers Alliance, which was created by Burson-Marsteller
• generate a dossier of newsclips orchestrated by Edelman to assist Microsoft lobbyists persuade U.S. state attorney generals not to join a class action against the company.
• Encourage people to buy Coke

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.

Coal industry Astroturf

ACCCE and Bonner & Associates

In July 2009, public relations firm Bonner & Associates was caught forging letters to Representative Tom Perriello. The letters were supposedly from Virginia-based minority groups, like the Charlottesville NAACP or Creciendo Juntas -- complete with their stationery -- and urged him to oppose the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill. Bonner & Associates apologized, saying the letters were sent by "mistake."^[1] Perriello is one of the co-sponsors of the Clean Water Protection Act, which would slow the practice of Mountaintop removal.^[2]

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a coal industry front group, later admitted that Bonner was working on its behalf, as a subcontractor for the Hawthorn Group. ACCCE said it didn't know about the fake letters beforehand, or condone them. In total, the House of Representatives has identified 14 fake letters sent by Bonner to three Democratic Representatives -- Tom Perriello, Kathy Dahlkemper (Dem-PA) and Chris Carney (Dem-PA). Carney and Dahlkemper voted against the Waxman-Markey bill.^[3][4]

Congressman Ed Markey, the co-author of the climate bill and the Chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, opened an investigation into the faked letters. He wrote the firm's founder, Jack Bonner, "asking a dozen lengthy questions about the letters," reported the New York Times, including "who hired it to lobby on their behalf, how much it was paid, in which congressional districts it operates in, the extent of its activities in those districts as well as information about the employee that was responsible for the mailing of the letters." Markey gave Bonner August 12, 2009 as the deadline to respond.^[3] The Sierra Club asked Attorney General Eric Holder to open a separate Justice Department investigation into the matter.^[5]

Head of ACCCE testifies before Congress

On October 29, 2009, ACCCE president and CEO Joe Miller testified before the House Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee about the forged letters sent by subcontractor Bonner & Associates. In his testimony, Miller claimed that his organization had never opposed the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill. However, an official June 2009 press release specifically stated, "ACCCE cannot support this bill, as it is written, because the legislation still does not adequately protect consumers and the domestic economy or ensure that the American people can continue to enjoy the benefits of affordable, reliable electricity, which has been so important to our nation."^[6] Miller also said that ACCCE has only lobbied Congress since April 2008, despite extensive records of the group's lobbying efforts for many years prior. The comments sparked accusations that Miller lied under oath and suggestions that the Justice Department may open a criminal perjury probe.^[7][6]

FACES of Coal

FACES of Coal, which stands for Federation for American Coal, Energy and Security, is a coal industry front group. The group, which is affiliated with West Virginia Coal Association front group Friends of Coal,^[8] launched in August 2009. The group is attempting to gain support for the coal industry as climate change legislation works its way through Congress.^[9]

FACES of Coal claims its membership includes 70 different coal and non-coal organizations, businesses, and individuals, including representatives of the tourism industry and state and county governments.^[9] However, its website provides no list of members.^[10] The group describes itself as "an alliance of people from all walks of life" and a "grassroots movement" to communicate the importance of coal in the U.S. to legislators and the general public.^[11] However, the "faces" featured on the group’s website -- including a woman working at a flower shop, a boy playing golf with his father, a family walking with a baby by a white picket fence, a fireman, and a grandmother waving an American flag -- turned out to be royalty-free stock photos from a company called iStockphoto.^[12][13]

Astroturf blogging

Astroturfing the judiciary

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Joel Connelly wrote September 11, 2006, that in Washington state "an outfit called" CHANGEPAC — "which is listed as a sponsor of personal attack ads running against Washington State Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and touting his challenger, John Groen"—"reported a huge $400,000 donation from the Building Industry Association of Washington." The "$400,000 check did not travel far", Connelly wrote, as the "BIAW and ChangePac can be found at the same Olympia post office box."

The domain / website VOTINGFORJUDGES.ORG calls itself "An information resource for Washington voters." As of September 8, 2006, CHANGEPAC (PO Box 1909, Olympia) had received an estimated $600,000 in revenues, with $400,000 attributed to donations on September 1, 2006, by the Building Industry Association of Washington (PO Box 1909, Olympia). "Advocacy" total expenditures to date are $336,704.82, with $291,377.09 spent on John Groen and $45,327.73 on Stephen Johnson. [1]

On the east coast, Connelly writes, an additional $320,000 was spent "on anti-Alexander ads ... aired by a group identified as 'Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse'," which "gives an address in Virginia and is the spawn of the American Tort Reform Association."

Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse WA PAC, with an Alexandria, Virginia, address, also links with VOTINGFORJUDGES.ORG. It shows a single contribution of $355,000.00 from Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse, also located in Alexandria, Virginia [2]. "Advocacy" expendures total $320,000.00: $80,000.00 to support John Groen and $240,000.00 to support Stephen Johnson in Washington. [3]

Other ads attacking Washington state "Supreme Court Justice Tom Chambers and backing challenger Jeanette Burrage" were "placed by a committee named Citizens for Judicial Integrity," Connelly wrote. "Public Disclosure Commission records reveal that the 'citizens" group has a single contributor:" On August 25, 2006, it received $72,000 from a political committee called Constitution First PAC, which "also has a limited list of contributors."

Richard Roesler, staff writer for the Spokesman Review, wrote August 31, 2006, in the Eye on Olympia Blog that CIJ, which had then been "formed just a week ago", was bankrolling the ads with $72,000 it had raised "in just a few days", with all the money coming "from yet another week-old political action committee: the Constitution First PAC", in turn supported by "just three donors: $50,000 from Sabre Venture, Inc. of Poulsbo and $12,500 each from J.R. Sherrard and A.L. Sherrard, also both of Poulsbo. (The Sherrards also donated the maximum $1,400 each to Burrage's regular campaign fund.)"

Telecom astroturf

Dionne Searcey, in the article "Consumer Groups Tied to Industry", in the Wall Street Journal, Tuesday March 28, 2006, p. B4, names some telecom groups as astroturf:

• Consumers for Cable Choice. Funding from Verizon Communications, Inc. and AT&T, Inc.
• Keep It Local New Jersey. Funding from New Jersey Telecommunications Associates; the WSJ indicates this is a coalition of various telecoms including Time Warner Cable and Cablevision Systems Corp.
• New Millennium Research Council. Funding from Verizon Communications Inc.

Virtual astroturf (the "Echo Chamber" approach to advocacy)

A 1998 memo, written by John F. Scruggs of Philip Morris Management Corporation's Federal Government Affairs Office (lobbying office), describes a public relations technique that corporations use to dominate virtually the entire decisionmaking environment in which legislators operate. The "Echo Chamber Approach to Advocacy," as Scruggs describes it, involves making a chosen corporate message, or slight variations this message, emanate from virtually all major sources that influence legislators' decisionmaking: constituents, colleagues, opinion leaders, local and national media (TV, radio, newspapers), fundraisers, advertising, etc. Scruggs says "...[T]his repetition, or 'piling on' approach works" because the message emanates from those who have " 'the greatest degree of credibility' with the legislator."^[14]

Articles and resources

SourceWatch case studies

• Astroturfing in Australia
• Grassroots PR Activists Swap War Stories
• Journalists who have been taken in by astroturfing

Related SourceWatch articles

• Astroturf Marketing
• Beckel Cowan
• Bivings Group
• Bonner & Associates
• Burson-Marsteller
• Davies Communications
• DCI Group
• Direct Impact
• front groups
• The Hawthorn Group
• Hill & Knowlton
• Issue Dynamics Inc.
• National Grassroots & Communications
• New West Public Affairs
• Optima Direct
• Phase Line Strategies
• TV4US

References

1. ↑ Brian McNeill, "Forged letters to congressman anger local groups," Daily Progress (Charlottesville, Virginia), July 31, 2009.
2. ↑ "Tom Perriello Cosponsors Clean Water Protection Act (HR 1310)", ArticleXI.com!, April 30, 2009.
3. ↑ ^{3.0 3.1} Alex Kaplun, "Coal Industry Group Linked to a Dozen Forged Cap-And-Trade Letters," New York Times, August 4, 2009.
4. ↑ David A. Fahrenthold, "House Unearths a 14th Forged Letter from a Lobbyist," Washington Post, September 10, 2009.
5. ↑ Alex Kaplun, "Sierra Club asks DOJ to investigate forged climate letters," E&ENews PM, August 3, 2009.
6. ↑ ^{6.0 6.1} Arthur Delaney, [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/pro-coal-lobby-boss-claim_n_338794.html "Pro-Coal Lobby Boss Claims Never To Have Opposed Climate Bill," Huffington Post, October 29, 2009.
7. ↑ Zachary Roth, "Could Coal Lobby Chief Be Probed For Perjury?," TPMMuckraker, October 29, 2009.
8. ↑ "FACES of Coal Plans to Highlight Industry’s Importance," WVNS-TV, August 20, 2009.
9. ↑ ^{9.0 9.1} Michelle Saxton, "Another pro-coal group enters the energy debate, Charleston Daily Mail, August 20, 2009.
10. ↑ FACES of Coal, accessed August 2009.
11. ↑ "FACES of Coal Campaign Launches in Charleston," FACES of Coal, August 19, 2009.
12. ↑ Kate Sheppard, "Who are the faces behind FACES of Coal?," Grist, August 20, 2009.
13. ↑ "FACES of Coal are iStockPhotos?!," Appalachian Voices Front Porch Blog, August 26, 2009.
14. ↑ John Scruggs, Philip Morris Management Corp. The "Echo Chamber" Approach to Advocacy Memorandum. December 18, 1998. Bates No. 2078707451/7452

External resources

• Term: "astroturf", Center for Media and Democracy
• "United Church of Christ Stooge for the Baby Bells?" UCCTruths.com. Note: link to dated article not available. Yes, it is: [4] The Internet Archive is a good source for "missing" webpages.
• Monsanto: "Monsanto's Web of Deceit" posted by Norfolk Genetic Information Network, various dates.
• John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, Toxic Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 1995).
• Sharon Beder, Public Relations' Role in Manufacturing Artificial Grass Roots Coalitions, Public Relations Quarterly 43(2), Summer 98, pp. 21-3.

External articles

• Tim Craig, "Community Leaders Decry Lobby Firm's Fax," Baltimore Sun, March 9, 2002.
• George Monbiot, "The Fake Persuaders. Corporations are inventing people to rubbish their opponents on the internet," The Guardian (UK) (posted by Norfolk Genetic Information Network), May 14, 2002.
• "Gray Panther Ads Targeting WorldCom Funded by IDI," Corporate Crime Reporter, June 2, 2003.
• Christopher Stern, "WorldCom Opponents In Sync," Washington Post, June 19, 2003.
• "Bogus Sites & Startups: From Web Astroturf To Turf-toe," alarm:clock, February 9, 2005.
• "Lobbying: Astroturf reform dead?" SpinWatch, March 2, 2006.
• John Eggerton, "Groups Target 'Astroturf' Telecom Lobbies", Broadcasting & Cable, March 28, 2006.
• Claire St. John, ‘Astroturf’ legislation could work in Davis, too, Davis Enterprise, April 27, 2006.
• Dawn Holian, "Astroturf Sightings," Common Cause Blog, June 22, 2006.
• Public Relations Institute of Australia, "Where the grass is not greener: Astro-turfing not an import Australia wants to grow", PRIA News, July 19, 2006.
• Teresa Nielsen Hayden, "No intention of playing fair," Making Light Blog, August 1, 2006.
• Raven, "Global Warming Astroturf courtesy of Exxon," Buy Blue, August 3, 2006. re Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
• Dawn Holian, "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing: Telecom Industry Front Groups and Astroturf" (Part 1) and (Part 2), Common Cause Blog, August 10, 2006.
• Dawn Holian, "New Astroturf," Common Cause Blog, August 25, 2006.
• R. Scott Raynovich, "Astroturf, Anyone?" Light Reading, August 29, 2006.
• Richard Roesler, " Eye on Olympia Blog/Spokesman Review, August 31, 2006.
• Brad Shannon, "Money pours into court races," The Olympian Online (WA), September 5, 2006.
• Press Release: "Rash of Negative Ads in Court Races. Bring 'New Politics of Judicial Elections' to Washington State," Brennan Center for Justice, September 8, 2006.
• Joel Connelly, "Attack ads on judges paid for by fake PACs," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 11, 2006.
• Esc and Ctrl part 1 [5]
• Esc and Ctrl part 2 [6]
• Esc and Ctrl part 3 [7]