Winning the War of Words: The “Front Group” Label in Contemporary Consumer Politics

When political interest groups contend for public support, both money and legitimacy are critical resources. Money is especially useful in disseminating ideas, while legitimacy aids their reception and acceptance. In political contests pitting private interest groups such as large corporations against public interest groups, private interest groups are relatively well endowed with financial resources. These resources can be used to purchase public relations expertise, plant favorable news articles, conduct push polls,1 and commission self-serving research. In contrast, public interest groups such as those in the consumer, environmental, and government reform movements tend to have the advantages of legitimacy in the eyes of the public because these groups purport to represent society as a whole. Thus, a pivotal task for public interest groups is to mobilize resources (McCarthy and Zald 1212; see also Jenkins), while private interest groups must either bolster their own legitimacy or undermine that of their public interest adversaries. Private interest groups often try to build their public legitimacy by employing the "third-party technique," that is, delivering their message through the mouth of an apparently impartial or independent party (Bernays 20). These third parties are often scientists working in industry-funded think tanks or journalists who, knowingly or not, uncritically disseminate information contained in company news releases, canned video news reports, or planted editorials.2 Another third-party technique is to establish, fund, and control an artificial public interest group. These groups are typically designed by public relations firms to look like spontaneous outpourings of grassroots public sentiment. By clothing the arguments of private interest groups in the mantle of the public interest, these third-party organizations pose a serious challenge to the legitimacy of traditional3 public interest groups. These traditional public interest groups attempt to delegitimate their artificial competitors by labeling them as "astroturf lobbyists"4 or, more commonly, "front groups" (Stauber and Rampton 79). The subject of this article is the use of the term "front group" as a symbolic weapon in consumer politics. This article begins by locating the study of front group accusations within previous research on the political uses of language. Then the article reviews the state of research on front groups and some difficulties in defining them. The heart of the article examines the use of the term "front group" as a political tool within the domain of consumer politics, asking: Who directs the term at whom, through what channels of communication, and with what apparent effect? The article's final section argues that front group accusations are part and parcel of a dynamic political culture and merit further study. Political Language The study of the political functions of language has a long tradition, especially under the rubric of rhetoric. The word "rhetoric" is derived from a Greek word meaning orator (Schiappa 4), so the speeches of political leaders are the most frequent subject of rhetorical analysis. The study of political rhetoric also encompasses the speech of individuals who seek to influence political leaders, such as leaders of social movements and fringe political parties. Rhetorical analysis typically focuses on big blocks of text such as a candidate's speech, an interest group's position paper, or a newspaper's editorial. It then seeks the elements of form and content that contribute to a text's persuasiveness. More recently, best-selling books like George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant! and Geoffrey's Nunberg's Going Nucular have drawn attention to the political functions of individual words or catchphrases, such as "pro-life" versus "pro-choice" or "affirmative action" versus "reverse discrimination." These phrases are designed to slant or "spin" the content of a message. …