Fake Politics: How Corporate and Government Groups Create and Maintain a Monopoly on Truth

To my wife and parents, family and friends, your continued support made me believe I could write a book. I am eternally grateful.

Copyright © 2019 by Jason Bisnoff

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without the express written consent of the publisher, except in the case of brief excerpts in critical reviews or articles. All inquiries should be addressed to Skyhorse Publishing, 307 West 36th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10018.

Skyhorse Publishing books may be purchased in bulk at special discounts for sales promotion, corporate gifts, fund-raising, or educational purposes. Special editions can also be created to specifications. For details, contact the Special Sales Department, Skyhorse Publishing, 307 West 36th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10018 or [email protected].

Skyhorse® and Skyhorse Publishing® are registered trademarks of Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.®, a Delaware corporation.

Visit our website at www.skyhorsepublishing.com.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available on file.

Cover design by Rain Saukas

Print ISBN: 978-1-5107-0547-0

Ebook ISBN: 978-1-5107-0548-7

Printed in the United States of America

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1: AstroturFED Agencies

CHAPTER 2: The Koch Brothers and the Wichita Tea Party

CHAPTER 3: Brooks Brothers and Miami-Dade—The 2000 Recount

CHAPTER 4: Wal-Marting Across America (Sponsored by Wal-Mart)

CHAPTER 5: Microsoft for Technology Leadership

CHAPTER 6: The Philip Morris Alliance

CHAPTER 7: Not-So-Clean Coal

CHAPTER 8: Mercer Incorporated (The Alt-Right Renaissance)

CHAPTER 9: Pipelines of Astroturf

CONCLUSION

NOTES

INDEX

INTRODUCTION

Politics is messy. Individual votes don’t always have an impact, depending on the political leanings of your jurisdiction. There can be an out-of-touch nature to representation, as elected officials spend the majority of their time wooing donors and speaking with other politicians—in capitals or Washington, DC—far from the main streets and townspeople who put them in power and to whom they are beholden.

Politics is also the mechanism by which so much good can come and so many essentials of a dignified existence are met. The US Government grants billions in research money to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS on an annual basis. Federal aid is given to the most vulnerable citizens in the wake of a natural disaster and those who are vulnerable year-round in impoverished regions of the globe. Thousands of children with disease are treated on the government dime through the Children’s Health Insurance Program (more commonly known as CHIP) and there are thousands of children and elderly people who live in government subsidized housing.

With all that is at stake resulting from the seventeen trillion dollars in gross domestic product that is the United States government, manipulation of any means can be dangerous.

Grassroots movements represent the pinnacle of the democracy our founding fathers designed, that our citizens deserve, and that benevolent politicians work toward. From those who boycotted buses in Montgomery to those who marched in Selma, grassroots actions in Alabama were integral to the civil rights movement. From tea parties to demonstrations that led to the Boston Massacre, the grassroots actions of a few rebels in Boston helped spark a war that would give the United States its enduring independence. Far more polarizing events are undoubtedly valiant in their commitment to representative democracy. The Bernie Sanders campaign, in the 2016 Democratic primary for president, served as a prime example. Sanders only accepted small donations, amassing seven million individual contributions to his campaign’s coffers at an average donation of $27 to give him the bankroll other candidates on both sides of the aisle often raise from major donors at swanky cocktail affairs in the beltway.

These grassroots movements are on unprecedented display in the time since Sanders conceded. In response to the election of Donald Trump, activists on both sides of the aisle (since Trump is uniquely disliked by sects of both Republicans and Democrats) have taken to fighting his agenda with grassroots tactics.

On the left, his fiercest opposition, organizations such as Swing Left, Indivisible, and Knock Every Door have looked to capitalize on an unpopular president and unprecedented engagement evidenced by the Women’s March the day after his inauguration among other manifestations to push a fifty state, every district top-to-bottom approach to digging the Democratic party out of the historically deep hole it currently sits in. The results were at first promising with substantial gains to show for efforts in Virginia, New Jersey, and Alabama special elections. They later led to one of the most lopsided midterm defeats in American history in 2018.

Meanwhile, left of Trump and right of center, the defunct campaign of John Kasich has seemingly continued operations unfettered after conceding the Republican nomination to the eventual president.

Right of Trump, and virtually as right as possible, the Trump presidency and specifically figures contained within, including former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, have emboldened neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups to ramp up their grassroots movements aimed directly opposite of progress. They have been encouraged out of the shadows of the discourse to be proud and heard in their distasteful beliefs. When the powerful attempt to co-opt and purchase the mobilization and tactics of the grassroots, or a movement altogether, it’s referred to as astroturfing.

AstroTurf is one of those terms, like Kleenex or ketchup, that has entered the lexicon as the name for a product while in fact having roots as a branded item. Used interchangeably with the name for what it actually is, artificial turf, it refers to short-pile synthetic turf. The prevalence of artificial turf, and the most well-known make, AstroTurf, on athletic fields nationwide, from MetLife Stadium to local high schools, continues to grow as a cheaper and more easily maintained replacement for natural turf or grass.

The original product was invented in 1965 by Donald Elbert, James Faria, and Robert Wright and patented under the original name ChemGrass. After its first major exposure at the Houston Astrodome in 1966, it was rebranded to AstroTurf. The technological advancement was a product of the massive agricultural corporation Monsanto. The company is politically polarizing and a major lobbyist along with being a multinational agricultural biotechnology and agrochemical company.

With grass, there is astroturf, a product made specifically to look and feel like real grass while not requiring the care and effort to maintain and sustain. With grassroots movements, there is astroturfing, the practice favored by those with a political agenda to falsify an organic movement by making their whims and preferences seem like common opinion and desire.

Astroturfing is not only a device used by political campaigns and parties: it is also used by major corporations and big business to push their interests. Very often, astroturfing in politics and in the private sector intersect much more than anyone may realize.

Whatever the cause, astroturfing remains a viable strategy for those in power to foster support that does not in fact exist in hopes of seeing through an agenda. Recently the Wall Street Journal uncovered some indicators that could point to ongoing use of the dishonest practice. Former Senators Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) had their identities stolen for comments submitted to the Federal Communications Commission in the lead up to a vote last year by the agency on removing net neutrality rules, according to the Washington Post.¹ This led to a subsequent investigation into the comments by then-New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, finding that up to two million comments were forged. Among the fake identities usurped by whoever posted the comments were a man who had died of cancer and a thirteen-year-old, according to the Post story by Hamza Shaban. As of now that fight remains up in the air with some in Congress hoping to override the FCC through a resolution. That being said, the process by which net neutrality is set to be revoked has been tainted.

CHAPTER 1

ASTROTURFED AGENCIES

As the debate waged on in early 2018 about the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) potential decision to repeal net neutrality rules put in place in 2013 by the Obama administration, a public docket was set up to solicit public comment on the policy. A story by James V. Grimaldi and Paul Overberg detailed the Wall Street Journal’s discovery of thousands of counterfeit comments pertaining to that rule and going even further into other federal agencies and other proposed rulemakings. The story says the comments appear to be stolen identities posted by computers programmed to pile comments onto the dockets.¹

The Journal went on to find almost 7,800 people who claimed comments posted in their name were falsified. The implication spanned several federal agencies but primarily the FCC docket. The fake comments were found on both sides of the debate, both favoring anti-regulation as well as regulation. The posts were made without the permission of those who were named and, in many cases, were unbeknownst to those named.

The public docket is the chief mechanism for the public to participate in federal rulemaking. The legally mandated public-comment process can impact regulations that in turn impact millions of Americans and the decision makers who rule over the process are often not up for election; therefore this comment process is among the only times they hear from the electorate. Furthermore, to knowingly make false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to a US agency is illegal, according to 18 U.S. Code § 1001.

Where the fraudulent slips toward the telltale signs of astroturfing is in the fine print. In many government rulemakings, there are parties on both sides of the divide with much to gain in influence, as well as financially. If you specifically look at the net neutrality debate it is starkly evident. On one side of the fold are major telecommunication companies such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast who hold the keys to the internet and stand to gain a laundry list of additional chargeable services if net neutrality is repealed. On the other side of the coin, internet titans like Facebook, Netflix, and Google have benefitted from net neutrality as they have been able to use the freedom of the internet to build powerful corporations.

On the FCC website, the Journal found 818,000 identical postings in support of the new policy, effectively superseding and revoking net neutrality. A survey conducted by the Journal and Mercury Analytics found that 72 percent of a random sample of 2,757 people with emails used to post those nearly million identical comments had nothing to do with them.² A word-for-word copied comment supporting net neutrality appeared on the FCC website over 300,000 times. The problem spread beyond the FCC and net neutrality to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). There were instances of people who had nothing to do with the comments or addresses used that were nonexistent. There was even the case of a comment from Donna Duthie of Lake Bluff, Illinois. Duthie had been dead a dozen years. Even the newspaper conducting the survey was not exempt from whatever mechanism was aiming to muddy the democratic waters. One comment filed with the SEC was submitted by "Jason Blake, commentator, The Wall Street Journal." It surely was an easy bit of reporting for Grimaldi and Overberg to figure out that the Journal has never had an employee with that name.

That comment was removed by the SEC and the commission told the Journal that letters that can’t be attributed to known people are assessed during the course of the rule-making process.³

A CFPB spokesman offered sentiments of concern for the inauthentic data but conceded that they did not ask for personal information necessary to assist in identity authentication, while an FERC spokeswoman offered that those who believe they had been misrepresented in comments should contact the agency. An FCC spokesman said that many of the comments that were fake do not have a substantial impact on rules and that without the resources to investigate, they air on the side of openness to comment.

While the Administrative Procedure Act mandates the aforementioned comment process and also says that the federal agencies need to take the comments under consideration, they do not need to adhere to them or rule based on them. Where the comments can prove most impactful is when regulated entities appeal regulations to a subsequent administration, Congress, or the courts in order to overturn a rule, alter a rule, or slow down the implementation of a rule. They can use a failure to consider comments as an argument in their case and there is precedent for judges to compel an agency to address ignored comments.

Despite the red-handed evidence in other cases contained in this book, where admissions or collective wisdom presented the astroturfing to be a clear, deceptive effort, the net neutrality case only shows a questionable coincidence of motives and actions. That was enough for Grimaldi and Overberg to mention it in their story. The crux of their story found behaviors similar to previous astroturfing efforts:

But postings the Journal uncovered went beyond being merely duplicative. They included comments from stolen e-mail addresses, defunct e-mail accounts, and people who unwittingly gave permission for their comments to be posted. Hundreds of identities on fake comments were found listed in an online catalog of hacks and breaches.

While many fakes were anti-regulatory, the Journal also found pro-regulatory comments on the FCC and FERC websites where people said they didn’t post them. In most of those cases, the people surveyed said they agreed with the comments, indicating that while they didn’t authorize them, a group or individual might have had their names in a list of like-minded people, possibly from the organization posting it. Some of these people said they were angry that someone who had access to their e-mail address would post it, even though they agreed.⁴

Where there is smoke, there’s fire. The largest concentration of fake comments came where the telecom giants met the internet titans all wrapped in a politically divisive and hot-button issue: the FCC and net neutrality. That proposal generated twenty-three million comments, speculated to be the most a federal agency has received on a rule,⁵ according to the Journal. What better place to make an attempt at astroturfing?

The potential abuse of democracy came in the midst of an influx of activity following a segment on the FCC decision on HBO’s Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. That initial rash of support for the Obama-era policy was followed by an equally fervent backlash against it. The Journal spoke to a web programmer, Chris Sinchok, who spotted a sharp increase in one specific comment repeating: The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation.⁶ The duplicates rolled in at a staggering rate of one thousand comments in ten minutes followed by silence. This evoked the imagery of web robots . . . turning on and off, and led the programmer to say that many were from hacked accounts.⁷

Sinchok and Fight for the Future, a pro–net neutrality group, wrote about the phenomenon online, hypothesizing that it may have been based on stolen identities. That lead to a criminal investigation by former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in May 2017.

The aforementioned comment and its duplicates exceeded any other comment, according to the Journal and Quid Inc., which analyzed the content for them. It had been posted more than 818,000 times on the FCC site. The Journal sent surveys to 531,000 of the emails associated with the comments, and the results were curious. Seven thousand emails bounced back from defunct addresses, while 2,757 responded to the survey. Of those who responded, 1,994 said the comment was falsely submitted, a staggering 72 percent fake rate with an estimated margin of error of less than 2 points. As is abundantly clear: The survey’s results, Mercury Analytics CEO Ron Howard said, are ‘a very significant indication of fraud.’⁸

Howard told the Journal: Generating tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of fake posts on public comment websites for the purpose of swaying public opinion and impacting the opinions of political decision makers is wide-scale not limited to a party, not limited to an issue, and not limited to a social ideology.

Even the vast amount who agreed with the comments that bore their name were upset and disconcerted at the abuse of their identity.

In an examination by the Journal, looking at 2.8 million of the 23 million comments, surveys were sent to 956,000 addresses including the aforementioned 531,000 who used the common unprecedented regulatory power language. The survey aimed to verify the identities of commenters and was sent out in four groups. The groups opposing regulation had fraud rates of 63 percent, 72 percent, and 80 percent. The only group examined that was pro-regulation was 32 percent fake.

Among 10.1 million comments analyzed by a research firm commissioned by the Journal, there were four hundred templates found. Additionally, 1.3 million comments had similar clauses and wording chopped up into different combinations with the same sentiment: against net neutrality.

The Journal explained further: "‘Tom Wheeler’s power grab,’ a reference to former FCC Chairman Thomas Wheeler, appeared in 37,531 comments. Praise for the pre-Obama ‘light-touch