grow your own astroturf

8/2/2019 Grow Your Own Astroturf

1/26


2/26

Page 2 of 26C:\Personal\Personal\Learning\Business\Business & Society\Assessment\Essay v4.docx Revision Date: 23-04-2012 20:48

Grow Your Own AstroturfThe Koch Brothers, Rupert Murdoch & The Tea Party

David McQuillan May 6, 2012In 2009 during a live broadcast on the American television network CNBC, Rick Santelli

complained vigorously about the policies of the United States government, stated that he

was going to have a Chicago Tea Party1, and invited any viewers to attend. From the initial

Chicago Tea Party meeting, the Tea Party movement (TPM) went from strength to strength

to become an influential political force in the lead up to the US 2012 elections (Burghart &

Zeskind, 2010; Jellins, 2011). The TPM is often described as a grass-roots movement,

particularly by those involved (Page & Jagoda, 2010; Oldham, 2011), however an

alternative narrative describes the TPM as a political movement which has been supported,

shaped, and led by wealthy interest groups (Oldham, 2011).

This essay explores the formation and development of the TPM as a case study to analyse

the ways that wealthy individuals can influence the political process. The Koch brothers and

Rupert Murdoch are the individuals at the centre of the analysis. To analyse their influence a

theoretical framework based on Herman & Chomskys propaganda model (1988) & Rhodespolicy network framework (1996) is developed and applied. We find using Cavanaghs

model of ethical decision-making (1984 as cited in Wartick & Wood, 1999) that both parties

have behaved unethically, although this is more true of the Koch brothers than it is of Rupert

Murdoch.

1

The Chicago Tea Party was a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists in 1773 tothe imposition of British taxes. The original Tea Party protest became a powerful cultural symbolwithin the American psyche representing freedom from oppression.


3/26


The Development of the Tea Party Movement

From the 1980s to the present day both the Republican and the Democratic parties in the

United States have shifted from the political centre to adopt more extreme positions on the

liberal/conservative political spectrum.. The most polarized members of the American public

are the most politically active (Abramowitz, 2011). Against this background of popular

conservativism the Libertarian party began promoting an idea they called the Boston Tea

Party Chicago (Burghart & Zeskind, 2010) and astroturf2 organisation Americans for

Prosperity began coordinating anti-pork (anti-economic-stimulus) protests (Williamson,

Skocpol & Coggin, 2011, p. 37).

The moment that many people see as the beginning of the contemporary Tea Partymovement is February 19th. During an on-air segment Rick Santelli broke into a rant about

the current governments policies, stated that he was going to have a Chicago tea party, and

invited any viewers to attend (Oldham, 2011; Williamson et al., 2011). It was the spark that

conservative organisers had been waiting for (Burghart & Zeskind, 2010, p. 16). Within an

hour Glen Beck, an Americans for Prosperity staff member was able to offer 500,000 people

who signed our petition against the stimulus bill. Im willing to email all of them and tell em

to come out to your event (in Oldham, 2011).

From that point the anti-pork protests quickly became Tea Party protests, as the

organisations who had organised the previous protests (Americans for Prosperity,

FreedomWorks and the Sam Adams Alliance3) jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon

(Burghart & Zeskind, 2010, p. 16; Mayer, 2010).

From mid-February to mid-April Tea Party protests became much more common, with the

numbers attending increasing from several hundred to several thousand (Williamson et al.,

2011).

The turning point for the Tea Parties was the FreedomWorks-hosted September 12,

2009 rally in Washington, D.C. Planning the massive event gave Tea Party factions

an opportunity to work together. Hundreds of thousands of Tea Partiers met in the

streets, broke bread together, shared their stories and their anger, and made

2An Astroturf organisation is a fake grassroots organisation - one which claims to be a grassroots

organisation, but has in fact been intentionally established by individuals or interest groups3The Sam Adams Alliance was a virtual network coordinated by Eric Odom who went on to establish

Liberty First PAC & the Patriot Caucus, and joined Tea Party Patriots as a coordinator.


4/26


connections to one another. Before the last port-a-potties were removed from the

Capitol Mall, the Tea Parties had turned from periodic protests into a full-fledged

social movement. (Burghart & Zeskind, 2010, p. 17)

Tea party organisations used this meeting to coordinate their 2010 mid-term election plans,

and ran workshops to train activists in a range of areas including political communication for

television & the use of social media to promote conservative ideology (Burghart & Zeskind,

2010, Oldham, 2011).

As the Tea Party movement grew, the role of Americans For Prosperity and FreedomWorks

seemingly fadedin importance asthe six different national Tea Party factions formed

(Burghart & Zeskind, 2010, p. 17). In August of 2010, the five national Tea Party factions

from largest to smallest membership base were Tea Party Patriots, ResistNet, Tea Party

Nation, FreedomWorks Tea Party and the 1776 Tea Party (Burghart & Zeskind, 2010) (See

Figure 1 on the following page).

The Tea Party movement has had significant political consequences. Throughout 2010

Republican candidates and factions moved to adopt Tea Party policies (Williamson et al.,

2011), Tea Party organisations endorsed particular candidates, and mounted a concerted

attack on Democratic candidates & Obama (Burghart & Zeskind, 2010). In the 2010

elections, the Republican party won 242 of the 435 seats in the house of representatives,

and 24 of the 37 seats which were up for re-election in the senate (Reuters, 2010). This gave

them a majority in the house of representatives, something which has not occurred since

1962 (Greenpeace, 2010).

Although the Tea Party movement is often described as a grassroots phenomena, there are

a number of organisations embedded within the movement that organise movement activity,

and there are some very wealthy individuals standing behind these organisations.

This essay aims to investigate the degree to which the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch

have been able to have influence over the political process both within and through the tea

party movement. Policy network theory and Herman & Chomskys propaganda model will be

used to analyse this influence. Finally we will use Cavanaghs model of ethical decision-

making to decide whether these individuals have behaved in an ethical manner.


5/26


Figure 1:Tea Party Faction Growth Over Time: (Source: Burghart & Zeskind, 2010)


6/26


Policy Network Theory

A policy network is the group of individuals, organisations & coalitions who are stakeholders

in a particular policy area (Rhodes, 1996). These policy network players attempt to employ

the resources at their command to achieve their own policy agendas. Policy networks arenormally viewed as a benevolent extension of government, although some authors note that

they can provide powerful individuals with too much access to the democratic process.

Policy networks vary in terms of their structure and coherence. These structural

characteristics affect power relationships within the policy network.

The traditional (pluralist) view of policy networks is that they enrich representative democracy

by allowing participants outside of the government access to the policy-making process.

(Greenaway, Salter & Hart, 2007). Interest groups can facilitate continuous dialogue

between the government and the people. This helps to keep the government informed, to

articulate and defend minority interests, and to check abuses of government power

(Richards, 2006). The conceptualisation is based on assumptions similar to that of the

economic perfect market, where there are a large number of participants and no single actor

has sufficient knowledge or capacity to dominate (Greenaway et al., 2007, p. 718).

Another perspective is that interest groups may exert unreasonable influence over

government through policy networks (Richards, 2006). According to Richards, the pluralist

assumption of many equal participants is unrealistic because interest groups have differing

levels of political access, resources and leverage.

Coalitions often form within policy networks around a set of shared terms and concepts

(Bulkeley, 2000). According to Bulkeley, coalitions can be categorised as either advocacy or

discourse coalitions. Members of an advocacy coalition share a set of normative and causal

beliefs andoften act in concert'' (Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, 1994, p. 180). Members of

discourse coalitions do not necessarily share beliefs and values, but do agree on a set of

shared terms and concepts. Advocacy coalitions are typically more coherent than discourse

coalitions, and therefore tend to have more power within the policy network (Bulkeley, 2000).

Policy network analysis involves identifying the players within a network, considering the

roles they play in the network, their objectives & their agendas. The positioning of players

within the network should be considered. Which players occupy nodal positions, and are

therefore able to act as informational gatekeepers (Rhodes, 1996)? The coherence of


7/26


networks and sub-networks should be determined. Its also important to identify the key

resources within a policy network and who controls access to them. Those who control

access to resources can exclude participants who do not (Bulkeley, 2000).

Media, propaganda, and issue framing

The role of media in a democracy is support of the democratic process by providing citizens

with timely, unbiased information about relevant issues (Hyndman, 2008). It is generally

considered that the ideal media environment for this support is one characterised by media

pluralism and professional journalism. A pluralistic media environment is one marked by a

variety of outlets with diverse ownership and viewpoints, independence and transparency

(Weiss, 2009, para. 1). The many viewpoints presented by a pluralistic media ensure thatnews coverage is balanced. Professional journalism is characterised by adherence to one of

many journalistic codes of ethics. These ethical codes emphasize objectivity and the

importance of verifying information (Project for excellence in journalism, n.d.). Many media

commentators note however that media companies are often more biased than one would

expect given journalistic ethics, that media concentration is leading the media environment

away from pluralism, and that media do not always present a balanced picture of the world

(Herman, 1996; Entman, 2007).

Mass-media companies occupy a powerful role in politics because as the dominant form of

communication they are able to decide which messages to filter, which messages to transmit

& how to frame the issues presented (Arsenault & Castells, 2008; Karp, 2010).

Herman & Chomskys propaganda model describes five media filters acting to restrict the

transmission of messages which conflict with the interests of media owners, directors,

advertisers and special interest groups: ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak & anti-

communist ideology (1988).

The ownershipof media companies acts as a filter because owners of media companies are

able to determine which stories are printable and which are not. Media owners and directors

are normally very wealthy individuals or multinational corporations who are involved in a

range of industries. In many cases it seems that stories are filtered out if they conflict with

the interests of owners and directors (Edwards & Cromwell, 2006).


8/26


The second filter is advertising. The majority of a media outlets funding generally comes

from advertising. Articles, documentaries or other media-scapes that criticise the role of

multi-national corporations or other significant advertisers are therefore unlikely to be

broadcast or published due to the potential backlash and loss of advertising revenue

(Herman & Chomsky, 1988).

The third media filter is sourcing. News sources often prefer to get their information from

people in positions of authority (government officials, police, corporate and military

spokespeople). Information from these sources is automatically considered credible by most

readers, and therefore does not require any additional investigation. This makes it easier to

use & of lower-cost than information from a less credible source which may require

significant investigation (Herman & Chomsky, 1988).

Institutions recognise this fact, and act to maximise their influence. Funding of the public

relations efforts of corporations & government offices dwarf the funding of alternative voices

(Herman & Chomsky, 1988). Corporations and wealthy individuals often establish think-

tanks which produce expert perspectives to support the agenda of the funders (Rich,

2005). As a result institutional viewpoints dominate the news-media, and alternative

viewpoints are marginalised.

The fourth media filter is flak. As well as positive PR, corporations & governmental

organisations pay employees and fund independent media pressure groups who monitor

the media for perspectives placing them in a negative light, so that they can respond

accordingly with flak (letters, emails, phone calls, petitions, law-suits, threats or other

potentially damaging responses) (Herman & Chomsky, 1988; Herman, 1996).

Herman & Chomskys fifth filteris anti-communist ideology. They describe how the spectre

of communism acts as a strong filter due to strong indoctrination of the American public. Anymovement away from pure capitalism towards a more socialist orientation can easily be

tarred with the communism brush, to invalidate progressive policies (Herman & Chomsky,

1988). More recently the threat of terrorism and Al-Qaeda have been employed in a

similar manner. The fifth filter could be more generally reframed as ideologyto capture the

use of other ideological symbols.

Finally media companies are able to frame political issues in a way that suits their interests.

Framing is the process of choosing elements of reality and presenting them using aparticular narrative to encourage target audiences to think, feel, and decide in a particular


9/26


way (Entman, 2007, p. 164). Framing can set the political agenda by raising particular

issues for discussion (Entman, 2007). According to Herman, mainstream media typically

frame news to keep debate within the boundaries that are acceptable to their owners,

shareholders and advertisers (1996).

Media analysis using this theoretical framework involves initially identifying the dominant

media outlets, the people in positions of ownership and directorship, the major advertisers,

and the interests and agendas of these media players. When considering a news story or

media content area, the interests and agendas of relevant news sources and pressure

groups should be considered. Finally the actual media items should be considered in terms

of framing. How do the narratives and ideological symbols used in the items reinforce or

undermine particular elements of the media item? What is presented before and after the

item? How is the item introduced and/or discussed?

Analysis

The Tea Party movement can be considered to be a policy network within the wider network

of American society. The overall structure of the Tea Party policy network and the nature of

the players within the network (individuals, factions & organisations) will be described in the

following section. The media environment that the Tea Party is influenced by will also be

described. This will provide the basis to analyse the influence Rupert Murdoch and the Koch

brothers have had on and through the Tea Party movement. Finally the section will end with

an analysis of the ethics of both the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch in this situation.

The Tea Party movement can be considered to have three levels of organisation. At the

centre of the movement are movement organisations (Bailey, Mummolo & Noel, 2011) which

coordinate the actions of those who are involved. Surrounding these organisations are a

grassroots army of several million activists who carry out the majority of tea party activity

(Neely, 2010; Burghart & Zeskind, 2010). More peripheral still are tens of millions of United

States citizens (16-18% of the adult population) who support the tea party movement with

their votes, but are not actively involved. The sympathetic voters provide the leverage

needed to achieve the Tea Partys political goals (Bailey et al., 2011).


10/26


Tea Party Members & Supporters

The majority of Tea Party supporters are strongly conservative, support the Republican

party, and have racialresentment (Abramowitz, 2011, p. 12) They are much more likely

than the majority of Americans to be birthers i.e. to believe that Obama was probably or

definitely not born in the US (44% vs. 22%) (Abramowitz, 2011), and to see Obama as a

socialist. The only source of news that supporters said they could trust was Fox, their main

news source. They are among the most pro-big business segments of the electorate. Tea

Party members have a similar profile to that of Tea Party supporters, but are more politically

active and conservative (Greenberg, Carville, Gerstein, Craighill & Monninger, 2010)

Tea Party Factions & Organisations

Associated with the Tea Party movement are a range of organisations operating at both local

and national levels. The largest four national Tea Party factions and Americans for

Prosperity are relevant to our analysis, and will be considered here.

Tea Party Patriots is the faction with the largest and fastest-growing membership base

(Burghart & Zeskind, 2010). It is a web-based faction whose stated aim is to change policy

(fiscal responsibility, constitutionally linked government, free markets) through mobilising

activists (Neely, 2010). The national coordinators of the movement Jenny Martin & Mark

Meckler have strong links to the Republican Party (Burghart & Zeskind, 2010). The other

national coordinator Eric Odom was the organiser of the Sam Adams Alliance, one of the key

coordinators of the initial Tea Party movement protests alongside FreedomWorks Tea Party

and Americans for Prosperity before he joined Tea Party Patriots (Mayer, 2010). He was

also the founder of Liberty First PAC and Patriot Caucus (Good, 2009).

The Patriot Action Network (previously ResistNet) is the second largest Tea Party faction,

and is another web-based organisation. It is a for- profit project of Steve Elliotts Grassfire

Action internet activism services organisation. The Patriot Action Network has strong links

with a network of ultra-conservative organisations including many who are anti-immigration

and associated with the birther movement (Burghart & Zeskind, 2010).

Tea Party Nation is the third largest faction, and has strong links to the Republican party

(Burghart & Zeskind, 2010). Its campaigning actions have been denounced by some

activists, who see evidence of Republican co-option (Neely, 2010).


11/26


12/26


At this point the brothers realised that their policies were not palatable to the general

American public. They decided that politicians were players playing out a script and that

they wanted to supply the themes and words for the scripts (Doherty as cited in Mayer,

2010, para. 31). Additionally to create the social change that they desired they would need

a strategy [that is] vertically and horizontally integrated, [spanning] from idea creation to

policy development to education to grassroots organisations to lobbying to litigation to

political action (Koch C. as cited in Mayer, 2010, para. 39).

The Kochs began pouring money into political

donations, lobbying and seemingly independent

organisations (Krehely, House & Kernan, 2004;

Mayer, 2010). Koch industries & the Koch brothers

fund a huge range of conservative foundations,

think tanks and political front groups which oppose

environmental legislation, healthcare reform &

Obamas economic stimulus programme (Mayer,

2010). The Koch brothers maintain strong control

over the organisations they fund. In the words of

David KochIf were going to give a lot of money,

well make darn sure they spend it in a way that

goes along with our intentand if theystart

doing things we dont agree with, we withdraw funding. (as cited in Mayer, 2010, para. 37)

Twice a year the Koch brothers host a meeting of conservative leaders aiming to coordinate

strategic efforts to combat public policies that aim to destroy America as we know it (Koch,

2010). This coordination is focussed around fashioning the message & building the

education channels (Koch, 2010, p. 4) & establishing organisations to educate and mobilize

activists. Topics on the agenda for the January 2011 meeting included Framing the debateon [government] spending, opposing regulation of energy companies, influencing higher &

primary education, maximising the impact of your gift-giving, and mobilising citizens for

[the] November [general elections] (Koch, 2010; Fang, 2010).

The Koch brothers have put a lot of time and money into education of the public and into

mobilising citizens to promote their ideology. In 1984 they founded Citizens for a Sound

Economy to make it appear that these ideas were coming from a grass roots source (an

astroturf organisation) (Oldham, 2011). In 2004 Citizens for a Sound Economy split intoFreedom Works & Americans for Prosperity (AFP). The Kochs continued to fund AFP

Figure 2: Koch brothers exposed

(Source: Demelle, 2011)


13/26


(Oldham, 2011), and have maintained direct control over this organisation. One AFP

participant described the Kochsrole as very controlling, very top down. You cant build an

organisation with them. They run it (Mayer, 2010, para. 54).

Americans for Prosperity was central to the establishment of the Tea Party movement. When

Rick Santelli invited interested parties to the initial Chicago Tea Party it was Glenn Beck, an

AFP staff member, who contributed the numbers to really get the movement going (Oldham,

2011). From that point AFP worked alongside of FreedomWorks and the Sam Adams

Alliance to coordinate Tea Party activity and to train and educate activists (Burghart &

Zeskind, 2010; Mayer, 2010). It is difficult to determine exactly how influential AFP has been

within the Tea Party because it is not an official Tea Party faction, and is not heavily studied

in Tea Party literature. What is observable is that AFP has been highly involved nationally in

coordinating activity & training activists (Oldham, 2011), that FreedomWorks and AFP often

seem to work together towards similar goals (Oldham, 2011; Wilson, 2011), and that Tea

Party ideology and activities are strongly aligned with the agenda of the Koch brothers.

Media & the Tea Party movement

One of the major influences over any mass movement is the media environment that

surrounds that movement. As previously discussed, the main source of news for Tea Party

supporters is Fox, the only news source that they believe they can trust to be fair and

balanced4 (Greenberg et al., 2010). As the preferred media provider of political messages

and commentary, Fox news has the ability to exert considerable influence over the Tea

Party.

A comprehensive media analysis including analysis of primary content, advertising, news

sources and relevant pressure groups is beyond the scope of this essay. The focus is rather

on Fox News as the dominant media outlet, Rupert Murdoch as the person who owns and

controls Fox and his interests and agendas. The narratives, ideological symbols and framing

used in media items that have been reported in secondary sources will also be incorporated

within the analysis.

4This is not a quote from Greenberg et al, but is rather the slogan of Fox news.


14/26


15/26


of Republican party issues and leaders is correlated with Foxs viewers shifting their political

stance and voting away from a Democratic frame to one which is more Republican focussed

(Morris, 2007; Dellavigna & Kaplan, 2007). It seems reasonable to assume that support of

the Tea Party movement would have a similar effect.

How much influence have Murdoch and the Kochs had?

The Tea Party movement is based on a premise that

Obama and those who have come before him have

undermined the power of the freemarket and the United

States constitution for the benefit of wealthy elites. Those

within the movement strongly believe that it is a movementof the people and oppose co-option (Barstow, 2010). It is

therefore ironic that the growth of the Tea Party movement

has been fostered and supported from its early stages by

some of the most wealthy and politically focussed

individuals in the United States.

One way that we can assess the degree of influence which

the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch have had over the

movement is to compare the interests of these powerful individuals with the ideology and

priorities of the Tea Party movement. The ideology of the Tea Party movement is centred on

two symbolic narratives: freedom & Obamas socialist agenda. Another strong ideological

theme is that of racial hostility.

The strongest narrative is one of freedom and/or liberty (Neely, 2010). The original Boston

Tea Party was a protest against British taxation. This protest was a key event in the

American revolution which led to independence from British rule, and therefore constitutes a

powerful symbol of freedom in the United States. In the contemporary Tea Party movement

freedom is often framed as freedom from government interference in the freemarket (taxation

or regulation). It is often claimed that this kind of economic freedom was one of the

intentions of the founding fathers of America as encoded in the constitution. This symbolic

nexus of associations (liberty-freemarkets-nationalism) is very powerful. With reference to

this set of symbols any government spending or regulation of the economy can be argued

un-American (Neely, 2010). Tea Party members and factions have opposed Obamas

economic stimulus package, healthcare reform, environmental regulation & clean energy

Figure3: Honk.(Source: Blitt, 2010)


16/26


17/26


the Koch brothers who have directed 92% of their political donations to the Republican party

in recent years (Greenpeace, 2011). While the anti-immigration agenda seems to have

evolved within the organisation independently of the Koch brothers, virtually everything else

can be related to the Koch brothers bottom line either directly or indirectly. The economic

stimulus package, healthcare reform, and spending on education would all lead to increased

government spending, something which the Kochs strongly oppose (Mayer, 2010; Koch,

2011). It is however the Tea Party movements resistance to environmental regulation, and

the underlying narratives, which are most telling. The Koch brothers have poured millions of

dollars into climate change denial and opposition to environmental legislation, more than any

other oil company in the United States (Greenpeace, 2011). The strong opposition to greater

environmental regulation shown by Tea Party members is reasonably strong evidence of co-

option.

Rupert Murdochs interests are not so strongly reflected in the Tea Party agenda. Murdochs

political energy seems to be generally directed toward ensuring that media regulation does

not negatively affect NewsCorps bottom line and to maximising his political influence

(Arsenault & Castells, 2008), themes which are not strongly represented within the Tea Party

narratives to date. As the owner of a large media corporation its in Murdochs best interest

to ensure that regulation is limited, especially legislation which relates to workers rights,

taxation, and media. This is probably the reason that most of Murdochs political donations

have gone to conservative politicians (Arsenault & Castells, 2008), and it is perhaps one of

the reasons for putting his support behind the Tea Party movement. It seems however at

this stage of things that Murdoch has not been as influential over the movement as the Koch

brothers.

Ethical analysis

The Koch brothers have attempted for many years to change the American political

environment to one of pure freemarket capitalism. After realising that their policies were

generally unpopular, they decided to build a web of influence to educate the public, and

influence political opinion. This essay has focussed on their attempts to build a mass-

movement in support of this political agenda by working behind the scenes.

Rupert Murdochs major influence over the Tea Party movement has been one of directing or

allowing Fox News to support & reinforce Tea Party narratives. It is unclear whether

Murdoch did this because it was judged that these messages would be appropriate for the


18/26


conservative target market of News, whether there was a deeper underlying reason for this

support.

Cavanaghs model of ethical decision-making will now be used to analyse the actions of the

Kochs and Rupert Murdoch (See figure 5). Cavanaghs model is based on assessment of

three criterion: Utility, Rights & Justice.

Figure 5: Cavanaghs model of ethical decision-making

(Source: Cavanagh, 1984 as cited in Wartick & Wood, 1999)


19/26


Wartick & Wood interpret the utility criterion as do the individuals decisions and actions

create an acceptable balance of value for all relevant stakeholders? (1999). The major

stakeholders in this context are Tea Party members and supporters, Tea Party organisations

and associated organisations, politicians, the general public (who are ultimately affected by

any successful political action), and any individuals or organisations who are affected by the

legislative changes which the Tea Party advocates for.

While the Kochs support of the Tea Party movement could be viewed as positive for Tea

Party members, supporters, and organisations, the majority of participants believe that they

are involved in a grassroots movement which is independent of wealthy elites (Barstow,

2010). The membership would be angry and disillusioned to find that they have been

manipulated into supporting the elitist agenda of the Koch brothers. In addition most Tea

Party supporters are working class (Greenberg et al., 2007). The very regulations which they

oppose are typically designed to support them and protect them from the unscrupulous

activity of wealthy elites.

The Kochs support of activist training and coordination through AFP and indirectly through

its sister organisation FreedomWorks has undoubtedly assisted Tea Party organisations to

grow their support base, and be more effective in achieving political outcomes. However

their influence over messaging (Williamson et al., 2011) and ideology may have led these

organisations to achieve different political outcomes than they would have if they were truly

independent.

Politicians have undoubtedly been affected by the Kochs support of the Tea Party, and their

influence over Tea Party ideology. Republican party policies have drifted right due to the

influence of the Tea Party. While this has been good for some Republican politicians, it

presents a challenge to the party which risks losing its centrist supporters if it moves too far

along the political spectrum (Abramowitz, 2011).

Its a little more complicated to assess the impact of the Koch brothers actions on the

general public. However there is no doubt that their underhanded actions have undermined

the democratic process, and have led to a raft of political changes across America which all

affect the general public. The ability of two unelected individuals to wield political power well

beyond the boundaries of the principle of political equality (Boston & Mladenovic, 2010) is

definitely not in the best interests of most citizens within the country.


20/26


Regarding the influence of the Kochs on the final category of stakeholders (individuals or

organisations affected by the legislative changes which the Tea Party advocates for) the

Kochs activity will benefit those who have aligned interests (e.g. energy companies, private

healthcare services), and will undermine those who do not (e.g. individuals affected by

environmental damage).

Murdochs support of the Tea Party is likely to have helped the movement to grow, and to

have helped to strengthen the movements ideology. His staff member Glen Beck seems to

have been significant in making freemarket fundamentalism a core element of Tea Party

ideology (Barstow, 2010). While it could be argued that Murdoch himself does not seem to

have tried to use the movement as a vehicle for his own agenda, in supporting the narratives

of the Tea Party, Fox has essentially put its support behind the Koch brothers agenda. This

support could be seen in a similar light to the support of the Koch brothers if you view

Murdoch as a manipulator motivated by political self-interest. If you see Murdochs actions as

motivated by providing a quality service to his target market, then this support could be seen

as positive for the supporters & organisations within the movement Foxs support has had a

similar effect on all other parties to that of the Koch brothers actions.

On balance it seems that according to the utility criterion, the Koch brothers have behaved

very unethically. This is also true of Murdoch, although if one views his actions as motivated

by serving Fox News the target market, then these effects could be argued as unintended

byproducts of Murdochs intentions.

The second criterion asks whether the rights of the individuals involved are respected by the

action or decision. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services the rights of a

United States citizen are the freedom to express yourself, the freedom to worship as you

wish, the right to a prompt, fair trial by jury, the right to vote in elections for public officials, the

right to apply for federal employment requiring U.S. citizenship, and the right to run for

elected office (n.d.).

None of these rights have been directly affected by the actions of either the Koch brothers or

Rupert Murdoch, however the influence that has been exerted by both parties over the

intellectual framing of political issues could be seen as interference with the right to vote.

The third criterion concerns justice or fairness, or in other words the fair distribution of

benefits and burdens combined with legislative equity (Wartick & Wood, 1999). This is a

very interesting criterion with respect to the case of the Tea Party because the centre of Tea

Party ideology is the symbolic nexus of freedom, freemarkets and nationalism (Neely, 2010).


21/26


By tying individual freedom to an empassioned vision of freemarket capitalism as the heart of

Americas success, working class Americans have been manipulated into taking actions

against legislation which is intended to support and protect them.

This manipulation of Tea Party members and supporters to work directly against their own

best interests is clearly very unethical. Again, the Koch brothers seem mostly to blame for

this situation, but Murdoch is also guilty through association.

So we are left with the actions of both the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch failing to meet

two of the three ethical criteria. According to Cavanagh, an action that has negative

consequences could still be considered ethical if there are positive outcomes that outweigh

the negative outcomes, and if the negative outcomes are not intended (1984 as cited in

Wartick & Wood, 1999). It would be difficult to argue that the positive outcomes of theseactions outweighed the negative effects for the majority of participants unless you were

arguing from the perspective of a freemarket fundamentalist who did not believe in the rights

of all people to participate equally in the democratic process. Clearly both the Koch brothers

and Rupert Murdoch have behaved unethically in this case. The Koch brothers seem to

have made more of a concerted intentional effort to manipulate the Tea Party movement to

achieve their own ends, whereas its possible that the negative effects of Murdochs actions

occurred as an unintended outcome of his attempt to serve the target market of Fox News.

The Koch brothers could be considered to be the more unethical party.

Conclusion

The Koch brothers have played a key role in supporting the growth of the Tea Party

movement, shaping its ideology, and mobilising those involved to advance the Kochs policy

agenda. According to this analysis, their self-interested actions have been highly unethical.

Rupert Murdoch has played a key supporting role in this process by either directing (most

likely) or allowing (possibly) Fox News to support and reinforce tea party narratives and

ideology. This has almost certainly contributed to the strong growth of the Tea Party

movement. Murdochs reasons for allowing Fox to go down this route may have merely been

to serve the conservative target market of Fox News, but its also possible that there was a

deeper political motive. According to this analysis, the actions of Rupert Murdoch have also

been unethical, although perhaps not to the same degree as those of the Koch brothers.

This investigation has left many stones unturned. Even though the actions of FreedomWorks

and Americans for Prosperity seem to have been highly coordinated, the nature of theirworking relationship could be clarified. The influence that FreedomWorks and AFP have


22/26


over other factions has been discussed briefly. It would be good to dig more deeply into this

influence. Who are the key people and what are the key relationships that facilitate this

influence? In focussing so completely on the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch we have

not investigated some of the other key players. Eric Odom appears perhaps the most

significant at this point. He was strongly involved in the movement from an early stage, and

has been involved in establishing & coordinating some of the key national organisations.

What are his resources, agendas and networks? These are just a few of the many questions

which remain.

Foucault once wrote

"It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticize the

working of institutions which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise

them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself

obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight them". (1974)

It seems critical to the health of the American democratic system that the kind of

manipulation of the political process that has been described in this essay is unmasked, and

effectively legislated against.

This is not just an American issue. While democracy is the best political system known for

allowing citizens to participate in the governance of their country, it is always vulnerable to

the manipulation which can be exerted by powerful interest groups. It is the responsibility of

any citizen living in a democracy to watch for signs of this kind of manipulation, and to do

what they can to protect and strengthen political equality.


23/26


References

Abramowitz, A.I. (2011, September). Partisan polarization and the rise of the Tea Party

Movement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science

Association, Seattle, Washington.

Arsenault, A. & Castells, M. (2008). Switching power: Rupert Murdoch and the global

business of media politics a sociological analysis. International sociology 23(4): 488-

513.

Bailey, M.A., Mummolo, J. & Noel, H. (2011). Tea party influence: a story of activists and

elites [Forthcoming in American Politics Research]. Retrieved from

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/baileyma/TeaParty_Final11Oct2011.pdf

Barstow, D. (2010, February 16). Tea Party lights fuse for rebellion on right. New York

Times. Retrieved from

http://www.thewaxhawgazette.com/Tea%20Party%20Lights%20Fuse.pdf

Blitt, B. (2010). Honk if you fail to see the irony in any of this. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich_art.html

Boston, J. & Mladenovic, A. (2010). Political equality and the regulation of election spending

by parallel campaigners. Australian journal of political science 45(4):623-642.

Bulkeley, H. (2000). Discourse coalitions and the Australian climate change policy network.

EPC: Government and Policy 18(6): 727-748.

Burghart, D. & Zeskind, L. (2010). Tea party nationalism: a critical examination of the Tea

Party Movement and the size, scope and focus of its national factions. Kansas City, MO:

Institute for research and education on human rights.

Dellavigna, S. & Kaplan, E. (2007). The fox news effect: media bias and voting. The quarterly

journal of economics122(3): 1187-1234.

Demelle, B. (2011). Koch Brothers Exposed: Brave New Films Explains How Billionaires

Could Profit From Keystone XL Pipeline. Retrieved fromhttp://www.desmogblog.com/koch-brothers-exposed-brave-new-films-explains-how-

billionaires-could-profit-keystone-xl-pipeline

Edwards, D. & Cromwell, D. (2006). Guardians of power the myth of the liberal media.

London: Pluto Press.

Entman, R.M. (2007). Framing bias: media in the distribution of power. Journal of

communication 57: 163-173.

Fang, L. (2010). MEMO: Health insurance, banking, oil industries met with Koch, Chamber,Glenn Beck to plot 2010 election. Retrieved from
http://www.desmogblog.com/koch-brothers-exposed-brave-new-films-explains-how-billionaires-could-profit-keystone-xl-pipelinehttp://www.desmogblog.com/koch-brothers-exposed-brave-new-films-explains-how-billionaires-could-profit-keystone-xl-pipelinehttp://www.desmogblog.com/koch-brothers-exposed-brave-new-films-explains-how-billionaires-could-profit-keystone-xl-pipelinehttp://www.desmogblog.com/koch-brothers-exposed-brave-new-films-explains-how-billionaires-could-profit-keystone-xl-pipeline


24/26


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/20/124642/beck-koch-chamber-meeting/

Foucault, M. (1974). Human Nature: justice versus power. In E. Fons (Ed.), Reflexive Water:

The Basic Concerns of Mankind. London: Souvenir Press, p.171.

Forbes (2011). The Forbes 400

the richest people in America. Retrieved April 17, 2011from http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/

Good, C. (2009, November 10). More signs of Tea Party campaigning in 2010: The liberty

first PAC. The Atlantic. Retrieved from

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/11/more-signs-of-tea-party-

campaigning-in-2010-the-liberty-first-pac/29946/

Greenaway, J., Salter, B. & Hart, S. (2007). How policy networks can damage democratic

health: a case study in the government of governance. Public administration 85(3): 717-

738.

Greenberg, S.B., Carville, J., Gerstein, J., Craighill, P.M. & Monninger, K. (2010). Special

report on the Tea Party Movement. Retrieved from http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-

content/files/Tea-Party-Report-FINAL.pdf.

Greenpeace (2010). Koch industries secretly funding climate denial. Washington DC:

Greenpeace USA. Retrieved from

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2010/3/koch-industries-secretly-

fund.pdf

Greenpeace (2011). Koch industries: still fueling climate denial 2011 update. WA:

Greenpeace USA.

Herman, E.S. (1996). The propaganda model revisited. Monthly review 48(3): 115-128.

Herman, E.S. & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent the political economy of the

mass media. NY: Pantheon books.

Hyndman, H. (2008). Examination into the New Zealand Herald campaign against the

electoral finance bill a dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of

Bachelor of Arts with Honours. Retrieved from http://liberation.typepad.com/files/hollie-

hyndman-dissertation.pdf

Jacobson, L. (2011, September). Welcome to the tea party. State legislatures. Retrieved

from http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/welcome-to-the-tea-party.aspx

Jellins, S. (2011). The Tea Party Movement: a new force in Republican politics? The

Charles H. Percy Undergraduate Grant for Public Affairs Research Papers series.

Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/89g322zc
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/20/124642/beck-koch-chamber-meeting/http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/20/124642/beck-koch-chamber-meeting/


25/26


Jenkins-Smith, H.C. & Sabatier, P.A. (1994). Evaluating the advocacy coalition framework.

Journal of public policy 14(2): 175-203.

Karp, J.A. (2010). How Voters Decide. In R. Miller (Ed.) New Zealand Government and

Politics (5th ed.) (p. 287-301). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Koch, C. (2011). A statement from Charles Koch on government spending and economic

freedom. Retrieved from http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/charles-koch-remarks-on-

restraining-government-and-enhanced-economic-freedom/

Krehely, J., House, M. & Kernan, E. (2004). Axis of ideology conservative foundations and

public policy. National Committee for Responsive Philanthrophy. Retrieved from

www.commasite.com/FileDownload.cfm?file=Axis_of_Ideology.pdf

Mayer, J. (2010, August 30). Covert operations the billionaire brothers who are waging a

war against Obama. The New Yorker. Retrieved fromhttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

Meyerson, R. (2011, Jan 22). Rupert Murdochs empire spins right-wing propaganda. Valley

News, p. A8.

Morris, J.S. (2007). Slanted objectivity? Percieved media bias, cable news exposure, and

political attitudes. Social science quarterly 88(3): 707-728.

Neely, P.G. (2010). The tea party movement: conservative political activism in the American

context(Masters thesis, Central European University, Department of Political Science,Budapest, Hungary). Retrieved from www.etd.ceu.hu/2010/neely_peter-galen.pdf.

Page, S. & Jagoda, N. (2010, August 7). What is the Tea Party? A growing state of mind.

USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/

Pease, D.E. (2010). States of fantasy: Barack Obama versus the Tea Party Movement.

Boundary 2(37).

Pew Research Centre (2010). The state of the news media 2010. Retrieved from

http://stateofthemedia.org/2010/

Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press (2011). Modest rise in number saying

there is solid evidence of global warming. Retrieved from

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2137/global-warming-environment-partisan-divide-

Project for excellence in journalism (n.d.). Principles of journalism. Retrieved from

http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles

Reuters (2010). Elections 2010. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/politics/elections-

2010.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayerhttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer


26/26

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996). The new governance: governing without government. Political

studies 44: 652-667.

Rich, A (2005). War of ideas why mainstream and liberal foundations and the think tanks

they support are losing the war of ideas in American politics. Stanford social innovation

review 3(1).

Richards, D. (2006). Pressure groups and policy networks. In D. Kavanah, D. Richards, A.

Geddes, M. Smith (Eds.). British politics(5thed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Rudeboy (2012). Fox News Backpedals On Obama Muslim Propaganda By Spinning. Is Fox

News Really Fair and Balanced?Retrieved fromhttp://www.sodahead.com/united-

states/fox-news-backpedals-on-obama-muslim-propaganda-by-spinning-is-fox-news-

really-fair-and-balanced/question-

2530367/?link=ibaf&q=&imgurl=http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002530367/21282520

08_Obama20Bow20to20Islam_xlarge.jpeg

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (n.d.). Citizenship rights and responsibilities.

Retrieved from

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.749cabd81f5ffc8fba713d10526e0aa0/?v

gnextoid=39d2df6bdd42a210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=39d2df6

bdd42a210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

Wartick, S.L. & Wood, D.J. (1998). International Business and Society. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Weiss, J. (2009). Media pluralism: divisive or democratic? Retrieved from

http://ijnet.org/community/groups/10189/media-pluralism-divisive-or-democratic

Williamson, V., Skocpol, T. & Coggin, J. (2011). The Tea Party and the Remaking of

Republican Conservativism. Perspectives on politics 9(1): 25 43.

Wilson, T. (2011, August 24). Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks join in calls for

higher ed reforms. The American Independent. Retrieved from

http://www.americanindependent.com/190937/americans-for-prosperity-freedomworks-

join-in-calls-for-higher-ed-reforms

grow your own astroturf

Documents