Front groups masquerade as grassroots citizens to weaken environmental protections

Evidence

Another common displacement strategy is disguising responsibility for subverting public policies designed to protect the environment. This is achieved through the creation of front organizations that masquerade under benevolent names and conceal their real purpose (Lutz, 1996). Industry-financed “scientific skeptics” add further credibility to the deceptive schemes (Gelbspan, 1998). Typical scenarios for the front organizations depict concerned citizens fighting big government, with its voracious appetite for laws and regulations that work against the public interest. If front organizations are cloaked in a seeming grassroots campaign, they gain an even greater sense of independence and credibility. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2717

Categorization

• SEED: Could seed an essay on the vocabulary of deception in environmental lobbying—naming the pattern of ‘benevolent-named front organizations’ and ‘astroturf’ campaigns.
• XREF: Connects to the astroturfing and manufactured-skepticism literature (e.g., Oreskes & Conway on tobacco/CO2 denial). — connects to: Well-funded national advocacy organizations signal grassroots engagement’s absence — Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival…, 504; Advocates of environmental education will encounter organized political resistance. — David Sobel, Place-Based Education: Connecting…, 63; 1990s Supreme Court decisions systematically raised barriers to citizen environmental standing — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 596 (+3 more)