The following material is provided merely for background and reference information, and should not be considered or substituted for legal advice. Please consult with your organization's legal counsel for more information. Can an advocacy group exist on the Internet only, without any offline component? Discussion on the NPTalk list attempted to provide a framework to begin consideration around this topic. One starting point was 1999 article by noted Harvard University government and sociology professor Theda Skocpol, entitled "Associations Without Members." Before we provide a summary of Skocpol's piece, we should probably draw a distinction between it and Robert Putnam's well-publicized 1995 "Bowling Alone" essay, from which he collected research which resulted in a similar-titled book in 2000. (By sheer coincidence, we note that Putnam is a professor of public policy at Harvard University). Putnam basically argues that America's "social capital"-- the collective total of connections formed by individuals-- has decreased as evidenced by weaker bonds among families, friends, and neighbors, but also by noticeable decreases in recreational, social, and civic activity done by groups and in groups. Parts of Putnam's thesis address the political sphere, especially grassroots activity. According to his research, Americans are less likely to sign petitions, join boycotts around particular products, and participate in religious or civic groups that meet even once a month, compared to 10-20 years ago. Another dynamic is that, while citizens are more tolerant, they trust others less (and as an interesting parallel, the numbers of those in law-related professions increased to process the manifestations of that distrust). Putnam argues that the loss of social capital is rooted in a bunch of things. These include changing family structures (more people living alone); rigid traditional organizational structures that are not fluid enough to accommodate changing patterns of social interaction, suburban sprawl, the private nature of leisure time courtesy of electronic devices (although the Internet is viewed with a neutral eye). Another indicator, although a debated one, is that more people ar volunteering, but the greatest percentage of those volunteering are those who were accustomed to doing so anyway-- older Americans-- not young people. So Putnam argues, these and other factors lead, at the very least, to a civic environment with lessened participation across individual and exclusive group participation, with some groups perpetually having more power and influence than others, more disengagement, and arguably, less desire for accountability in political life. Skocpol argues that membership groups considered "locally rooted and nationally active" are no longer the default for civic life. Moreover, citizens are more prone to participate in one-time political activity, more likely to contribute money instead of time to organizations staffed by professionals rather than volunteer-run grassroots groups, and that political dialogue and debate occurs more between organizations than individuals who gather together on a regular basis. In addition, the sheer volume of groups at the local to national level involved in particulate forms of activity (policy work versus serving the community in which it operates, addressing member needs) outweighs those organizations providing multiple vehicles for participation. The period just before, after, and during World War II represent, for Skocpol (and for Putnam to large degrees) a golden age of civic activity. Interestingly, both identify a distinction which existed even then among civic activity organized around "elite" interactions (Rotary, Lions, Kiwanis, Elks), women's groups (League of Women Voters and American Association of University Women), and groups formed around minority interests (black fraternal orders, Chinese mutual aid societies, etc.). it was also a period of time in which grassroots membership groups organized around labor, agricultural, educational, and veterans' concerns advocated on behalf of policy issues at both the local and national level. Starting with the increased pressure and ultimately successful push for racial equality, Skocpol asserts that other rights movements, generally manned by younger activists, made their way to the forefront of civic activity. It should be noted that the timeline for slaves' and women's rights that preceded this push represents no small period of time itself. Skocpol notes that these newer, younger movements combined "grassroots protest, activist radicalism, and professionally led efforts to lobby government and educate the public." This had the effect of forcing older association to open up their ranks and accommodate broader agendas in order to retain their memberships. For the most part, however, rather than having the proliferation of issues converge under existing membership structures, more groups simply sprang up. Equally significant-- fewer large scale, democratically-operated, grassroots organizations were created that dealt directly with their memberships on a frequent, regular basis, without professional intermediaries. Those that did only experienced growth when they began to addressed local, state, and national policy issues in addition to providing basic member services. The four cited in this instance, in order of initial founding, are the National Education Association (1857), the National Rifle Association (1871), the National Right to Life Committee (1973), and the Christian Coalition (1989)). There was also a growth of sorts, writes Skocpol, of "chapter-based membership associations." These are defined as national groups that have local community or state entities, yet lack an intermediate coordinating body between the local organizations and national group. This includes (again in order of founding) the Sierra Club (1892), the National Audubon Society (1905), the National Organization for Women (1966). Like Putnam, Skocpol argues that a mix of factors led to the shift from a civic universe of voluntary association to advocacy groups. The latter's implications include changing social and gender roles, and orientations in attitudes towards duty and service to the nation. Skocpol's discussion of women in American civic life from the 1800s onward is particularly interesting, for example, for highlighting the importance of both career and family in limiting the amount of time available for participation in voluntary associations predicated on a significant amount of personal time commitment. So by implication, the increased political acumen of groups organized around relatively narrow-scope issues and political causes helped to create a unique and distinct sphere of policy activity. Within this sphere, citizens learned that political power could exist independent of (and somewhat closely aligned on occasion to) traditional political party networks organized at the grassroots to national level. The more open the avenues to political participation, the wider the range of participants in traditional political arenas operating under more diffuse advocacy structures-- a number of which relied less on traditional membership models for their strength. By extension, Skocpol states, these organizations began to be supported by more private donors and foundations, instead of strictly surviving on the strength of dues-paying "membership." This, in turn, led to a landscape still in play today, in which new causes breed new organizations, set up as offshoots of existing activity, which reach out to (rather than from) a grassroots base, with less emphasis on governance by-- and interaction with-- membership. At the local level, Skocpol differs from Putnam's view, arguing that more, not less, civic participation is taking place by citizens-- especially those left out of the central political landscape dominated by "memberless" advocacy groups. But, Skocpol shares a palatable concern with Putnam that For Skocpol, advocacy groups staffed by professionals today are concentrated on lobbying, research, and outreach to the public, rather than direct engagement of their memberships (versus the public at large). Even voluntary groups work on behalf of, rather than with, the populations they serve. Moreover, despite the multitude of voices, Skocpol argues that there are still very few citizens actually involved in policymaking, sitting at the table with decision-makers, as opposed to political elites (regardless of how connected they may be to grassroots bases). If one takes Putnam and Skocpol up on their arguments, the nature of advocacy groups seems tailor made for the Internet compared to "traditional" entities enabling civic participation. That is, if one assumes that the point of engagement is to provide a means to conduct lobbying, research, or education and outreach to particular audiences, without governance, oversight, or accountability roles filled by members of the communities or interests on whose behalf the advocacy takes place. This could open the door to is the notion of "real" grassroots versus "astroturf" (or "fake" grassroots) advocacy. "Astroturf" does not necessarily reflect the quality of the advocacy-- one would know that lobbying, research, or public education/outreach is indeed taking place. It instead refers to grassroots activity generated, organized, and conducted within a fixed time period, around a single issue, by actors or entities who are not themselves grassroots actors, yet shield their involvement and influence in the overall proceedings. Astroturf campaigns are generally used when the position or issue of concern to a set of interest would lose widespread support if that particular set of interests were ever directly identified with that specific issue. Astroturf efforts differ from organizational coalitions or formal campaigns in that you often don't know what interests or groups are behind the activity (and its funding). They go to great lengths to incorporate the skin or veneer of grassroots legitimacy (and potential grassroots opposition) by emphasizing names like "Citizens Concerned [About]" or "Citizens [for]" in their names. They then utilize "spontaneous" online letter writing campaigns through special websites, "independent" research, "open letters" in print, message development and dissemination via online banner ads, and "public" discussion forums, among other tcols. Specific examples of astroturf in the past six years have included:

• efforts by tobacco companies to organize "citizen-based" smokers' rights groups and discredit nonprofit and media critics;,
• Microsoft's attempt to marshal "grassroots" support in its favor during its antitrust trial;
• Corporate attempts to prevent environmental education curricula into the classroom;
• Attempts by oil industry and electricity utility actors to discredit environmental groups;
• Lumber industry opposition to groups concerned with protecting water quality;
• heck, even the California Raisin Advisory Board used astroturf to prevent release of a book outlining carcinogens used in processing raisins.

It is no accident that we have highlighted mostly corporate-backed or generated astroturf-- the bulk of documented examples both, online and offline, tend to be favored more by corporate interests. At the very least, it's easy to argue that astroturf cheapens the notion of political action in a democracy. Why? Because it allows money and power to influence the ability of grassroots actors to determine their own options; and allows a select group of potentially powerful actors to operate without any accountability or impunity in the political process. It's just as easy to argue that astroturf, if more widely used, may help to level the playing field for groups dealing in unpopular or hard-to-define causes, or that require a lot of political leverage in a short amount of time. In addition, in a landscape that affords individual citizens much leeway to directly influence political activity, discourse, and deliberation, it simply provides the means to ground individual "meta-activity" into something more tangible. Resources "Associations Without Members" The American Prospect July/August 1999 (vol 10, issue 45) Theda Skocpol "Bowling Alone" Astroturf Examples Tobacco Companies Microsoft example Environmental Education Curricula Oil Industry Examples Electricity Utility Example Lumber Industry California Raisin Advisory Board