Charities that AT&T donated to support AT&T's anti-Net-Neutrality position at the FCC

Now that the FCC's Net Neutrality comment-period has closed, Ars Technica's Nate Anderson has rounded up a list of charitable organizations with nothing to do with Net Neutrality, who nevertheless weighed in to support AT&T and Comcast's position -- these organizations are also all beneficiaries of large corporate donations from the telco giants. So much for charity -- when a donation to the Boys and Girls Club by AT&T comes with an obligation to weigh in on regulatory proceedings that threaten the profits of AT&T, it's not really a gift... More like selling out your group's good name.

Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Will and Grundy Counties. Comment: "The ability to utilize this technology in a cost-effective manner did not happen by accident or by government policy. It happened because of a competitive marketplace that rewarded the companies who invested in the latest networks and products. I believe that the development of new federal rules and regulations will only inhibit these types of investments."

The Big Brothers/Big Sisters, especially at the local level, aren't known for having opinions of the innovation effects of government policies in the telecommunications sector... but they do take money from AT&T, as the picture below reminds us.

Why the Kankakee County Farm Bureau hates net neutrality

[Glenn Fleishman #1 07:33 on Fri, Jan.15]

This kind of sockpuppetry (paying someone to stick your hand up their ass) is extremely common, but reporters rarely mention it because they don't have the time to take to run down the entities. It's only when it's egregious like this that it stands out.

In the past, groups like Amplify Public Affairs, formerly Issue Dynamics, specialize in astroturf of this type. Search on Gray Panthers and astroturf, for instance.

[Anonymous #2 08:00 on Fri, Jan.15]

Mr. Fleishman is correct - this is a common tactic. Corporations leverage their "donations" to non-profits by enlisting benefactees to do their bidding, sometimes without the knowledge or consent of the organization which is, in essence, being hijacked.

An Arizona group trying to derail the opening of an ostensibly owl themed, boob-centric restaurant found the company had submitted several hundred "letters of support" from unwitting charities and social services groups. The Girl Scouts were not too happy to discover that Hooters was using a thank-you letter they had written (as proof of community support) in an effort to obtain a liquor license.

[Anonymous #3 08:15 on Fri, Jan.15]

this makes ATT's latest Luke Wilson commercials seem even more grating. Verizon and ATT both arguing that their 3G coverage is, in fact, better. Choose us and you'll be able to access only those sites who fork up the $$ that much quicker on your smart phone!

[dequeued #4 14:22 on Fri, Jan.15]

These kind of blatant lies really make my blood boil.

[Bloo #5 05:27 on Sat, Jan.16]

Often, this is not written into the grants, it's more subtle. You get a grant from some big organization (corporation, government, church, whatever) based on whatever the grant criteria are. Then, at some later point they send communications to all their grantees, asking for support of their position on some issue. Someone at the non-profit says 'hey, if we help these guys out maybe we have a better chance at getting another grant from them and they're X% of our budget this year, we want to thank them for helping us, ... ' and so, in a misguided self-interest, they do it.

[invictus replied to comment from Bloo #6 06:53 on Sat, Jan.16]

And what do you know? The following year, the grant recepients who supported the donor get more money, while they ones who didn't... Not so much.