It’s quite popular to call political movements you disagree with astroturf groups today.

An astroturfing is defined on Wikipedia as:

Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source’s financial connection. The term astroturfing is derived from AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to resemble natural grass, as a play on the word “grassroots”. The implication behind the use of the term is that instead of a “true” or “natural” grassroots effort behind the activity in question, there is a “fake” or “artificial” appearance of support.

It seems like the astroturf narrative plays well into the ideological left that believes that any group that disagrees with its ideology must either be fake or brainwashed.

But obviously that isn’t the case all of the time. A lot of people have diverse opinions and different ways to look at issues as they come from different backgrounds.

Groups both on the left and right both seek funding from foundations and special interests. Getting a message out and organizing large groups of people is very expensive. It takes money to get protest permits, to transport people on buses to the protest site, feed volunteers and make their time feel valuable.

Mass movements often require an elaborate press operation, to help them get their message out. Sure, a grassroots movement can have volunteers doing press calls and even designing social media graphics for sharing but it’s often better to have professionals handling press who know how to reach out to press and make a story newsworthy.

I don’t think it’s necessarily bad that grassroots groups lean on big money to get their message out but I do think it’s important to listen to all sides of the debate and recognize that monied interests might have certain preferences that the grassroots backing them might not fully agree with.

Money in politics is like an amplifier on a stereo system. It doesn’t change the music but it can make it louder and distort the sound. But like an amplifier, money doesn’t mean much in politics if there isn’t popular support behind the message.

Most of the time when I hear the accusations of astroturf, I think people are jt trying to silence a message they disagree with.