Secretive Funding Fuels Ongoing Net Neutrality Astroturfing Controversy

alphadogg writes: The contentious debate about net neutrality in the U.S. has sparked controversy over a lack of funding transparency for advocacy groups and think tanks, which critics say subverts the political process. News stories from a handful of publications in recent months have accused some think tanks and advocacy groups of "astroturfing" — quietly shilling for large broadband carriers. In a handful of cases, those criticisms appear to have some merit, although the term is so overused by people looking to discredit political opponents that it has nearly lost its original meaning. An IDG News Service investigation found that major groups opposing U.S. Federal Communications Commission reclassification and regulation of broadband as a public utility tend to be less transparent about their funding than the other side. Still, some big-name advocates of strong net neutrality rules also have limited transparency mechanisms in place.

Comments

We rate the groups here

[grantus]

Still, some big-name advocates of strong net neutrality rules also have limited transparency mechanisms in place.

And who exactly are they and where is your proof of their limited transparency mechanism? Do you have actual specifics or simply vague FUD?

We rate the groups based on objective measures in this story.

Grant Gross
IDG News Service Washington correspondent