The earliest documented example of a "front group" was the the work of Edward Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud who is widely considered the "father of public relations." Bernays began working as a press agent for theatres, hotels and other businesses in 1913. At the time, he was editor of the Medical Review of Reviews, a monthly magazine owned by a college acquaintance. He discovered that the then-famous actor Richard Bennett was interested in producing a play titled "Damaged Goods," which Bernays described as "a propaganda play that fought for sex education." It discussed sexual topics, such as prostitution, that were considered unusually frank for their day. Bennett was afraid that the play would be raided by police, and he hired Bernays to prevent this from happening. Rather than arguing for the play on its merits, Bernays cleverly organized a group that he called the "Medical Review of Reviews Sociological Fund," inviting prominent doctors and members of the social elite to join. The organization's avowed mission was to fight venereal disease through education. Its real purpose was to make "Damaged Goods" acceptable to the public, and apparently the plan worked. The show went on as scheduled, with no interference from police.

"This was a pioneering move that is common today in the promotion of public causes -- a prestigious sponsoring committee," notes PR industry historian Scott Cutlip. "In retrospect, given the history of public relations, it might be termed the first effort to use the front or third party technique." It was a technique that Bernays would return to time and again, calling it "the most useful method in a multiple society like ours to indicate the support of an idea of the many varied elements that make up our society. Opinion leaders and group leaders have an effect in a democracy and stand as symbols to their constituency."

Blog and Spin of the Day postings from PRWatch.org that are tagged with the "front groups" taxonomy term.

From the musical "Walmartopia"In 2005, the Edelman PR firm created the front group Working Families for Wal-Mart on behalf of their client, the retail giant. With Wal-Mart funding, Edelman ran the faux citizens' group to counter union critics like WakeUpWalMart.com, founded by the United Food and Commercial Workers and Wal-Mart Watch, founded by the Service Employees International Union. Edelman has been removed from the project due to Wal-Mart's decision to bring the front group in-house. Wal-Mart spokesperson David Tovar said the plan is to "retool the group and its website as a platform for employees and consumers to speak out in favor of the world's largest retailer, rather than the outside supporters it has featured so far. 'We believe the best way to tell our story is to bring Working Families for Wal-Mart 'in-house' and operate it as an internal program. We're at a point where we no longer need a separate entity.'" It doesn't appear that Wal-Mart has any qualms about publicizing the change in direct management of the Working Families organization. A visit to the group's website, www.forwalmart.com, produces this message: "Please check back soon for a new site brought to you by Wal-Mart. For now, please visit Wal-Mart Facts." Wal-Mart Facts is a site that has the heading "Get the facts and latest news about Wal-Mart from Wal-Mart."

Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, a front group for the coal industry, is "sending 30 Santas to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to deliver stockings filled with coal-shaped chocolate," reports The Hill. "The goal of the campaign is to shift coal's image as a key contributor to global warming to a relatively cheap and increasingly clean provider of electricity." David Roberts predicts that "This is only the beginning of what promises to be an enormous PR campaign by an industry that sees the writing on the wall. In public, it will be smiles and Santas. Behind the scenes, it will be slime campaigns against candidates who dare propose a shift to renewable energy."

The November 6, 2007 election brought a stinging defeat to Oregon's cigarette tax increase. The proposal aimed to raise the state's cigarette tax by 84.5 cents a pack to pay for health insurance for about 100,000 additional poor Oregon children who currently have no coverage. Measure 50, as the tax was called, went down by a wide 60-40% margin.

Increasing cigarette taxes to fund health care is not a new idea, and tobacco industry efforts to defeat such measures aren't new either. What was new in this case was that tobacco interests poured a record $12 million into defeating Oregon's measure, making it the costliest election in Oregon's history. So stunning was the industry's effort that Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski openly accused the tobacco industry of "buying the election" in his state.

Old Dog, No New Tricks

The tobacco companies trotted out their most formulaic and time-tested strategies to defeat Oregon's tax measure: They created front groups with grassrootsy-sounding names designed to push voters' emotional buttons. R.J. Reynolds formed Oregonians Against the Blank Check, and hired their longtime Oregon lobbying ally Mark W. Nelson to head the group. Philip Morris formed "Stop the Measure 50 Tax Hike," and funded it with money from their parent company, Altria Corporate Services. The companies then determined which populist-sounding messages pushed voters' buttons the hardest while omitting any mention of the subject of health. They then purchased vast quantities of advertising to push these messages relentlessly onto Oregon voters.

From a Center for Union Facts TV adCorporate-funded attack dog Rick Berman, who has previously attacked Mothers Against Drunk Driving, tobacco control advocates and critics of fast food, is on the warpath against teachers' unions. In a speech at the Conservative Leadership Conference in Sparks, Nevada, Berman said "everybody should be afraid" of unions and warned that the Employee Free Choice Act, currently being considered in Congress, could lead to explosive growth in union membership and "change politics in this country forever." Teachers' unions in particular need to be attacked, he said, because people normally tend to like and trust teachers. "We have to reposition these people in the minds of the public," Berman said. "If you don't, you will always be fighting Mother Teresa. ... We have to marginalize their unwarranted credibility." A Berman front group, the Center for Union Facts, has been running TV ads featuring actors posing as unhappy union workers, and print ads comparing union leaders to Fidel Castro and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il.

It's no secret that polls are used to shape public opinion at least as much as they're used to measure it. The website of one major U.S. polling firm, the Mellman Group, boasts its "extensive experience developing effective communications strategies that lead people to choose our client's product or service, join their organization, hold their opinion, or vote as we would like."

Polling was used as a perception management tactic in the national debate over the children's health insurance program known as SCHIP. As President Bush prepared to veto an SCHIP reauthorization bill, Republican strategists worried about the impact on their party. Republican pollster David Winston came up with a solution: present the party's opposition as an attempt to "'put poor kids first' rather than expand coverage to adults, illegal immigrants and those already with insurance," reported the Wall Street Journal. "Independents favored that message 47%-38%." The veto went ahead, with the "poor kids first" theme figuring prominently in Republican talking points and briefing materials, such as the White House's "Five Key Myths About President Bush's Support for SCHIP Reauthorization."

Polls are also frequently employed as part of a "bandwagon" strategy: most people support (or oppose) this, so you should support (or oppose) this, too. Last year, a poll purported to show strong opposition to "net neutrality," the principle that networks should provide access to any data, without discrimination. But the poll questions were highly leading, asking participants whether they preferred "new TV and video choice" and "lower prices for cable TV," or "barring high speed internet providers from offering specialized services." The poll was funded by Verizon Communications, which opposes net neutrality.

Another telecom-related poll was unveiled last month at a press conference in Madison, Wisconsin. According to a press release (PDF) put out by the newly-formed Wisconsin Video Choice Coalition, "Wisconsin residents across demographic, geographic and party lines overwhelmingly support a state bill that would encourage competition to cable TV."

By all accounts, the legislation in question is controversial. Why, then, did the poll find such strong support for it?

The Hygiene Council, a "think tank" created and funded by the cleaning products company Reckitt Benckiser, touts the need for "good hygiene practice" in the "home and community." Ruth Pollard reports that the council "is pushing products that contain the expensive -- and potentially damaging -- antibacterial additive, triclosan." Aside from promoting commonsense measures to prevent infections such as the washing of hands and appropriate preparation and refrigeration of foods, the council is enthusiastic about the chemical treatment of household surfaces. "Commonly touched surfaces should be regularly disinfected with products such as LYSOL Disinfectant Spray," the council states on its website. Peter Collignon, the director of infectious diseases at Canberra Hospital, believes that promoting the use of products containing triclosan was "a marketing exercise with no real benefit" that would "do nothing to stop multi-resistant bacteria in hospitals. If anything it may actually contribute to it." Triclosan products are used in hospitals as a disinfectant, particularly against staphlycoccus.

The New York Times today published an op-ed piece blasting research that tests the comparative effectiveness of pharmaceuticals. The piece failed to mention that its author, Peter Pitts, is a senior vice president at the PR firm of Manning, Selvage and Lee. Pitts has a history of flacking as an attack dog for the pharmaceutical industry and currently heads a pharma front group called the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. Physician Roy M. Poses of the Foundation for Integrity and Responsibility in Medicine has written a critique of the "slippery slope" rhetoric in Pitts' editorial. "It is disappointing that a newspaper as influential as the New York Times would publish a health policy article without disclosing all the author's relevant financial interests, particularly one so relevant and direct," Poses adds. "Fostering more stealth health policy advocacy in ever more influential venues will just make the already confusing clamor about health care and its reform even muddier."

The Sport Utility Vehicle Owners of America (SUVOA) industry front group paid the PR firm Stratacomm $440,000 in the first half of 2007 to lobby the U.S. government. Stratacomm boasts a range of auto industry clients. Later this year, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are set to discuss proposals to mandate that the auto industry meet a fuel efficiency target of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 across their range of vehicles, including passenger cars and sport utility vehicles. Associated Press reports that recently filed lobbying disclosure forms reveal that SUVOA "lobbied against Senate legislation promoting higher fuel economy standards." In 2004, the PR commentator Paul Holmes wrote that "what is clear is that SUVOA is a front for SUV manufacturers. Its board of directors consists largely of industry reps and public affairs execs with ties to the industry."