Chapter 27 Exercises: Economic Ideology, Corporate Messaging, and Astroturfing

These exercises develop practical skills for identifying, analyzing, and evaluating economic ideology propaganda. They require original research, close reading, and structured argument. Some exercises are designed for individual completion; Exercise 5 is explicitly a group project.

Exercise 27.1 — Think Tank Funding Analysis

Type: Individual research and analysis Estimated time: 3–4 hours Skill developed: Source evaluation, interest analysis, manufactured intellectual authority detection

Background

This exercise asks you to research the funding sources of a specific policy think tank and analyze the relationship between those funding sources and the organization's published policy conclusions.

Instructions

Step 1: Select your think tank. Choose one of the following (or propose an alternative to your instructor): - Heritage Foundation - Cato Institute - American Enterprise Institute - Heartland Institute - Competitive Enterprise Institute - Brookings Institution (included as a comparison case — not ideologically conservative) - Center for American Progress (included as a comparison case — progressive-aligned)

Step 2: Research funding sources. Use the following sources: - The organization's own website (look for "donors," "supporters," or "financials") - InfluenceWatch.org (maintains funding data on advocacy organizations) - OpenSecrets.org (political funding data) - IRS Form 990 filings (publicly available through ProPublica's Nonprofit Explorer) - News reporting from investigative outlets (Columbia Journalism Review, ProPublica, The Intercept)

Document at least five major funders or funding categories. Note any cases where funding information is not publicly available or requires significant searching to find.

Step 3: Identify funder interests. For each major funder or funding category, identify: - The industry or sector the funder represents - The specific regulatory, legislative, or policy areas where the funder has direct financial interests - Any public policy positions the funder has taken or lobbied for

Step 4: Analyze think tank publications. Identify at least five policy publications from your selected think tank on topics relevant to major funder interests. For each publication, evaluate: - Does the publication's conclusion align with, diverge from, or ignore funder interests? - Does the publication disclose the organization's funding sources? - Does the publication meet academic standards (peer review, acknowledgment of contrary evidence, methodology transparency)?

Step 5: Write your analysis (800–1,200 words). - Summarize your findings on funding sources and funder interests - Evaluate the relationship between funder interests and published conclusions: is there a systematic alignment, or do publications diverge from funder interests in meaningful ways? - Apply the criteria from Section 27.3 (transparency, independence, methodology, disclosure) to evaluate whether this organization functions as a legitimate policy institute or as manufactured intellectual authority - What is your conclusion about where this organization falls on the advocacy-to-propaganda spectrum? Acknowledge the strongest counterargument to your conclusion.

Evaluation Criteria

  • Quality and completeness of funding research
  • Specificity of funder interest analysis
  • Rigor of publication evaluation
  • Strength of conclusion and engagement with counterarguments
  • Appropriate acknowledgment of uncertainty where evidence is incomplete

Exercise 27.2 — Lakoffian Framing Analysis of Economic Policy Debates

Type: Individual close reading and analysis Estimated time: 2–3 hours Skill developed: Framing analysis, language awareness, critical reading

Background

George Lakoff argues that political frames activate neural networks that shape how information is processed. Chapter 27 applies this framework to economic ideology propaganda. This exercise develops the skill of identifying frames in real policy discourse.

Instructions

Select three of the following economic policy debates. For each:

Debates to choose from: - Minimum wage legislation - Financial regulation (banking rules, securities regulation) - Health insurance — public options vs. private markets - Tax policy (income tax, capital gains tax, estate tax) - Environmental regulation (EPA rules, carbon pricing) - Housing policy (rent control, zoning regulation) - Trade policy (tariffs, free trade agreements) - Labor law (union organizing rules, NLRB procedures)

For each selected debate, complete the following analysis:

Part A: Frame Identification - Collect five to ten actual examples of language used about this topic from different sources (news articles, opinion pieces, policy papers, political speeches, advertising). Cite each source. - Identify the key framing terms used on different sides of the debate. - Construct a framing table: for each key term, identify what it makes visible, what it makes invisible, and what value it embeds.

Part B: Frame History - Research the origin of the most successful framing terms in your debate. When did this language first appear? Was it organically developed or professionally produced? (Frank Luntz archives, American Heritage Dictionary of Political Language, journalism archives, and academic sources in political communication are all useful here.)

Part C: Frame Effect - Propose an alternative framing for the same policy debate that makes different values salient. Does your proposed framing more accurately represent the empirical content of the debate, or does it simply reflect your own values? What is the difference between accurate language and favorable language?

Part D: Written Analysis (300–400 words per debate, 900–1,200 words total) - Synthesize your findings across all three debates. What patterns do you observe in how economic policy is framed? Who has benefited most from the dominant frames? What would more transparent language look like?

Evaluation Criteria

  • Quality of frame identification and table construction
  • Depth of frame history research
  • Intellectual honesty in Part C (distinguishing accurate from favorable framing)
  • Synthesis quality

Exercise 27.3 — Tracing the "Death Tax" Frame

Type: Individual historical research Estimated time: 2 hours Skill developed: Frame history analysis, archival research, primary source identification

Background

The phrase "death tax" for the federal estate tax is one of the most frequently cited examples of successful political framing. This exercise traces its history as a case study in how professional frames enter public discourse.

Instructions

Part 1: Baseline - What is the federal estate tax? Describe the actual policy: what it taxes, at what rates, with what exemptions, affecting what percentage of estates. Use IRS data and nonpartisan sources (Congressional Budget Office, Tax Policy Center). - What are the alternative names for this policy? List all common names and identify who uses each.

Part 2: Frame History Research and document the following: - When did the phrase "death tax" first appear in American political discourse? (Congressional Record, newspaper archives, and academic sources on political communication are useful here.) - Who popularized it? The role of Frank Luntz's 1994 "Contract with America" language research is frequently cited — document this. - How did it spread? Trace the spread from political messaging to news coverage. When did mainstream news outlets begin using "death tax" vs. "estate tax"? This shift has been studied by communication researchers — find and cite the research. - What was the effect? Did the frame affect public opinion on estate tax policy? How do polling organizations capture this framing effect?

Part 3: Analysis (600–800 words) - Apply the Lakoffian framework: what does "death tax" make salient? What does it conceal? What values does it embed? - What does this case demonstrate about the relationship between professional political messaging and public understanding of policy? - Does the successful deployment of "death tax" framing constitute propaganda? Apply the advocacy-propaganda distinction from Section 27.1 to make your argument.

Evaluation Criteria

  • Accuracy and specificity of policy baseline
  • Quality of historical research on frame origins
  • Evidence of spread documented with specific sources
  • Rigor of analytical argument

Exercise 27.4 — Applying the Doubt Template: Climate vs. Tobacco

Type: Comparative analysis Estimated time: 2–3 hours Skill developed: Comparative case analysis, pattern recognition, source evaluation

Background

Oreskes and Conway's Merchants of Doubt argues that the climate denial campaign used the same template as the tobacco science denial campaign — including, in some cases, the same scientists and organizations. This exercise develops your ability to apply a comparative analytical framework.

Instructions

Part 1: Document the Tobacco Doubt Template

Using the primary and secondary sources from Chapter 15 and your own research, document the specific components of Big Tobacco's doubt campaign: - The central claim (manufacturing uncertainty about settled science) - The specific techniques (funding contrarian scientists, media placement, TIRC, Tobacco Institute) - The key personnel (identify at least three scientists or consultants involved) - The timeline (when it started, how it evolved) - The goals (delay regulation, create liability protection)

Part 2: Apply the Template to Climate Denial

For each component identified in Part 1, document the parallel in the climate denial campaign: - What was the equivalent claim? - What were the equivalent techniques? - Are there individuals who appear in both campaigns? (This is documented — use Oreskes and Conway, Inside Climate News reporting, and the Climate Investigations Center database.) - What is the timeline? - What were the equivalent goals?

Construct a parallel timeline or comparison table that makes the structural similarity visible.

Part 3: The Legal Parallel

Big Tobacco's internal documents — showing that company scientists knew about health risks while public communications denied them — eventually became central to successful litigation and the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement.

Research the current status of litigation related to the fossil fuel industry's internal climate research vs. public communications: - What state attorneys general investigations are ongoing? - What documents have been disclosed? - What legal theory parallels the tobacco litigation?

Part 4: Written Analysis (700–1,000 words) - Assess the strength of the analogy: in what respects are the tobacco and climate campaigns genuinely parallel, and in what respects are they different? - What does the parallel suggest about the fossil fuel industry's legal exposure? - What does the parallel suggest about the effectiveness of the doubt template? Why does it work so reliably?

Evaluation Criteria

  • Completeness and accuracy of tobacco template documentation
  • Specificity of climate denial parallel documentation
  • Quality of legal research
  • Analytical depth in assessing the analogy (including honest treatment of disanalogies)

Exercise 27.5 — Group Project: Transparent Advocacy vs. Astroturfing Design

Type: Group project (3–5 students) Estimated time: 4–6 hours including preparation and presentation Skill developed: Applied understanding of advocacy vs. propaganda distinction, campaign design, ethical analysis

Background

This exercise asks you to design two campaigns for the same economic policy position — one following the standards of legitimate transparent advocacy, the other following the techniques of astroturfing. By designing both, you will develop a concrete understanding of what distinguishes them.

Instructions

Step 1: Choose a policy position (30 minutes, full group) Select an economic policy position to advocate for. Choose something genuinely contested. Options include: - A specific minimum wage increase - Expanded financial regulation of a specific industry - Specific environmental regulation - A specific tax reform proposal - Expanded or reduced union organizing rights

Step 2: Design the Transparent Advocacy Campaign (1.5 hours)

Design a campaign for your position that follows all standards of transparent, legitimate advocacy:

  • Identify your actual client: Who is funding this campaign? State this clearly.
  • Disclose interests: What financial or other interests does the funder have in this policy outcome?
  • Develop messaging: Create two to three key messages. What evidence supports them? Cite sources. Acknowledge the strongest counterargument.
  • Choose channels: Where will you place your advocacy? How will audiences know who produced it?
  • Grassroots organizing: If you want citizen participation, how will you recruit it honestly, without concealing your organization or its funding?

Produce a brief (one to two pages) campaign plan and three sample communications (a press release, a social media post, and a one-page policy brief) that meet transparency standards.

Step 3: Design the Astroturf Campaign (1.5 hours)

Design a campaign for the same position using the astroturfing techniques documented in this chapter:

  • Create a front organization: What name, logo, and apparent mission will your organization have? How will it imply independence and citizen focus while concealing its actual funding?
  • Astroturf messaging: How will you present your position as emerging from citizen concern rather than funder interest?
  • Manufacturing consensus: How will you create the appearance of expert and citizen support? What think tank infrastructure might you reference?
  • Framing: Apply Luntz-style framing analysis to develop language that embeds your conclusion before the argument begins.
  • Simulated grassroots: How will you organize protests, media appearances, and "citizen" communications that appear spontaneous?

Produce a brief (one to two pages) astroturf campaign plan and three sample communications designed to be indistinguishable from authentic citizen advocacy.

Step 4: Comparison and Ethical Analysis (1 hour)

Present both campaign designs to the class or to your instructor. Your presentation should address:

  • What are the specific differences between the two campaigns, and why do they matter?
  • Could an ordinary citizen distinguish between your two campaigns based on what they would actually encounter in media? What would they need to know?
  • The transparent campaign: what did you have to sacrifice (effectiveness, reach, persuasive power) to meet transparency standards?
  • The astroturf campaign: what did you gain (effectiveness, persuasive power) by concealing your funding and manufacturing grassroots appearance? What did you do that you could not ethically defend publicly?
  • Position C from Section 27.10 proposes mandatory disclosure as the structural fix. Would the disclosure requirements proposed there effectively distinguish between your two campaigns? What might be missing from that proposal?

Written Deliverable (group, 600–800 words) A reflection analyzing what this exercise revealed about the advocacy-propaganda distinction and what it suggests about the structural conditions needed for democratic discourse to function with integrity.

Evaluation Criteria

  • Quality and creativity of both campaign designs
  • Specificity of difference analysis (what exactly distinguishes them)
  • Depth of ethical analysis
  • Quality of group written reflection
  • Presentation clarity