Part 4 (1/2)

What about money? Readers may wonder if local groups were seeded with generous grants from outside funders. Perhaps that has happened in some instances; many local Tea Party websites have ”Donation” b.u.t.tons and appeal for sympathetic people to pitch in. But the local groups we visited were not opulent affairs, and members were doing a lot to raise funds of their own. Members set up tables to sell costume jewelry, sweats.h.i.+rts, DVDs, and books, for which they may get a bit of a take after paying the vendors. Just as in a church congregation, local Tea Parties take collections at the meeting to pay for minor expenses. A volunteer group of ladies usually sets up a refreshments counter-often with their own homemade baked goods and a donation box on the table. Meeting places are usually community halls or public libraries, or else gathering s.p.a.ces connected to churches where one or more of the Tea Partiers is a member. As we noted in both Virginia and Arizona, Tea Parties that regularly meet in restaurants may use a separate room that the proprietor makes available on the understanding that many attendees will purchase meals and drinks.

To transport Tea Party people to regional or DC rallies, or to offer training to local organizers, well-funded outside groups such as Americans for Prosperity often step in. But local Tea Parties may also organize carpools or collect donations to charter their own buses or bring in a top-quality speaker. Meeting costs are usually covered by modest group efforts. And individual members often pay their own way to drive to lobbying days, protests, and meetings of governing bodies they are monitoring. The Was.h.i.+ngton Post survey of local Tea Parties found that most groups had only small treasuries on hand. This fits with what things looked like on the ground in the groups we visited in New England, Virginia, and Arizona.

Notably, some local Tea Parties have evolved toward establis.h.i.+ng a regular system of members.h.i.+p dues, precisely in order to ensure predictable, if modest, resources under direct local control. Tea Parties in Virginia, including the Charlottesville group, inst.i.tuted dues during 2011. This is a significant step toward a voluntary mode of members.h.i.+p-based financing that was typical in cla.s.sic civic America before the era of grants from national foundations and wealthy donors. Today, civic organizers often suppose that it is ”easier” on members if funding comes from outside sources. But, actually, citizen control of civic and political groups becomes stronger when members themselves finance their group's core functions-and that kind of financing is most effective when it comes through regular dues rather than occasional appeals. Carole Thorpe in Charlottesville realized the advantages that dues would bring, and made exactly this kind of case to her fellow Tea Partiers.

Are Tea Partiers Organizing States, Too?

In cla.s.sic U.S. civic life, between early national times and the middle of the twentieth century, local chapters in voluntary a.s.sociations were usually parts of state-level federations-and national federations, too-in which elected leaders ran conventions and orchestrated shared projects and deliberations. The American Legion, for example, once had thousands of local posts, each of which regularly sent leaders and delegates to state and national conventions; and the same was true of dozens of other political, civic, religious, fraternal, veterans', and women's voluntary members.h.i.+p federations that flourished in America through the mid-twentieth century. In fact, the normal pattern of growth for voluntarily organized federations in the United States involved the very early spread of federations across dozens of states. State-level organizations tended to be founded as soon as there were six to ten local lodges or clubs or posts in a given state and, once inst.i.tuted, the state federation facilitated the further establishment of many more local members.h.i.+p units.23 Local lodges or clubs or posts flourished within the framework of representatively governed state organizations, themselves linked to national organizations with elected volunteer leaders. State and national organizations received a small fraction of the dues regularly collected from local members. That was the formula for successful voluntary a.s.sociations through most of American history.

Overall, the Tea Party does not manifest this cla.s.sic pattern of federated activity, in which local groups elect higher-level leaders. As we are about to see, national organizers involved in the Tea Party are not elected or accountable; these groups are managed and funded from above. But in some states, local Tea Parties have found ways to link themselves together in coordinating arrangements. And in Virginia, the complexity of organization took a significant upward step in September 2009, when the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation was founded. Along with a few collaborators, Jamie Radtke, a Richmond area activist, searched local newspapers across the state to ferret out the leaders of the roughly thirty local Tea Parties that existed at the time.24 Each local group was invited to send delegates to the gathering at which the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation was founded. State-level officers were elected and rules put in place to further a modic.u.m of representative governance.

The Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation orchestrates conference calls, now held every Tuesday night, to allow local Tea Party leaders to share ideas. It runs ”lobbying days” in Richmond, convenes quarterly summits of local leaders, and maintains a professionally designed website.25 The Virginia Federation even held its own convention in the fall of 2010. Sponsored by some big names in conservative politics, including the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, and several Libertarian groups, the Federation convention brought thousands of Tea Partiers to the state capitol for training and seminars, and also managed to draw big-name speakers, including political a.n.a.lyst d.i.c.k Morris, Representative Ron Paul, former Senator Rick Santorum, and even former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs.26 When Virginia Tea Party Chairwoman Jamie Radtke decided to run for the GOP Senate nomination in Virginia, she stepped down as Federation Chair, and Mark Lloyd of Lynchburg was elected for 2011.27 At the start of his term, about forty local Tea Parties were formally part of the Federation. In its maturity, the Virginia Federation is experiencing some internal tensions, including disenchantment in some local groups as state leaders move toward endorsing GOP candidates and speaking for all Virginia Tea Parties. Local leaders bristle at any loss of control. Nevertheless, Virginia stands out in the Tea Party for its relatively well-articulated local and state organization generated primarily by Virginians themselves.

Tea Partiers in other states may be trying to learn from and imitate the Virginia example. We have noted increasing state coordination starting to take shape elsewhere. The Michigan Tea Party Alliance, for instance, has a dues structure and explicit rules for member and affiliated local Tea Parties.28 Encouraged by Tea Party Patriots, a regional alliance seems to be taking shape in northern California.29 State-level organizers in Minnesota are encouraging coordinated efforts including lobbying the legislature. In most states, gra.s.sroots organization remains largely local or loosely coordinated across metropolitan areas. In Arizona, a dozen or so local Tea Parties cooperate through the citywide Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots, which acts as an information broker, sending out daily alerts about events around the sprawling city. Metropolitan coordination of this sort occurs in many states, but it is not the equivalent of a true state federation with elected leaders.

Gra.s.sroots Tea Partiers see both advantages and disadvantages from organization above the local level. On the positive side, we were told that joining the Virginia Federation was a source of pride and power for the Peninsula Patriots. Especially in smaller and rural places, one Tea Party member told us, involvement in the Federation helps people know they are part of ”something bigger than your local community.” But if many local Tea Partiers enjoy taking part in conference calls and conventions along with Patriots from other groups, others are wary. Local leaders may resent outside direction, or fret if higher-level leaders try to use their Tea Party's name for endeavors not approved by the flock. One Virginia leader told us that his group was contemplating withdrawal from the state federation to conserve time and protect local autonomy. And we heard hints of wariness elsewhere, too. Speaking about the array of local, citywide, and state Tea Party ent.i.ties in Arizona, Larry Fisher expressed ambivalence: ”We're still not sure if that makes sense ... I'm not sure that a gra.s.sroots organization needs that much organization.”

Even when a.s.sociation-builders in the Tea Party operate authentically from within their states, they face an uphill climb to build organizational layers above localities. Local Tea Parties were mostly well-entrenched before state-level organizers came along. Like the New Leftists of the 1960s, moreover, Tea Party partic.i.p.ants are intensely suspicious of higher authority. They are quick to notice if other Tea Partiers seem to be using gra.s.sroots energy for their own aggrandizement or enrichment-not just at the national level, but in their own state or region. Anxious to guard local autonomy, Tea Party people can be influenced in many ways, as we are about to see, but they cannot easily be corralled into higher-level formal arrangements.

ROVING BILLIONAIRES AND NATIONAL IMPRESARIOS.

The dramatic appearance and sudden spread of the Tea Party did more than energize local conservatives; it also lifted the spirits of national elites and organizations at the rightward edges of the GOP. New effervescence at the gra.s.s roots was electrifying for conservative big-money funders, political consultants, and organizations advocating free-market policy ideas.

Fresh opportunities suddenly beckoned. Organizations that lacked much of a presence in states and localities could reach out to Tea Partiers across the country, offer them support, and build contact lists for future efforts. Political action committees could use the Tea Party label to attract cash infusions and support favored GOP candidates. Advocacy organizations pus.h.i.+ng ultra-free-market nostrums could use tableaus of gra.s.sroots Tea Partiers to give the impression that their agendas enjoy ma.s.s support. Ultra-conservatives became more optimistic about attacking the Obama presidency and reshaping the GOP.

A scramble for the head and heart of the Republican Party is an important part of the story for national conservative organizations competing to stoke and use Tea Party activism. From February 2009 on, right-wing organizations and elites scrambled to orchestrate activism where possible, and also tried to leverage the loyalties, votes, and checkbooks of Tea Partiers and their sympathizers. But that was not all. Ultra-conservative elites also wanted to prod and redirect the Republican Party.

Not Your Father's Conservatives.

Scholars such as Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson-authors of the astute books Off Center and Winner-Take-All-Politics-have made a powerful case that both major U.S. political parties, and especially the Republican Party, cater to corporate pressures and enact policies that increase inequalities of income and wealth.30 In the pivotal decade of the 1970s, U.S. business interests created powerful new alliances and a.s.sociations and learned to cooperate across industries to channel money and ideas in politics- both at election time and during months of governmental decision-making between elections. Over the past few decades, attentive and well-resourced business lobbying organizations gained enormous influence over what issues came up for debate, and they were able to block or insert critical provisions in legislation making its way through Congress and in rules taking shape within administrative agencies. In the face of this powerful lobbying force, GOP officeholders and candidates have increasingly refused to consider raising taxes, even in the sort of budgetary circ.u.mstances that prompted President Ronald Reagan to accept tax increases along with spending cuts to move toward budgetary balance.

Are today's right-wing organizations partic.i.p.ating in the Tea Party the same as those that have been central to the GOP as it has drifted ever right-ward in recent decades? In many cases, yes-which may explain why liberal muckrakers tend simply to label proTea Party elites ”pro-business,” and leave it at that. But this characterization may not be precise enough to get at the particular sorts of wealthy kingmakers and ultra-right-wing organizations involved in the Tea Party phenomenon. They are more extreme, compared to those who counted as ”mainstream” in pro-business GOP circles just a few years ago.

Both recent GOP presidents named George Bush, father and son, certainly privileged organized business interests. The same is true of Mitch McConnell, the GOP Senate leader, and John Boehner of Ohio, who served as House Minority leader before he became the GOP Speaker of the House in January 2011. Hardly insurgents, McConnell and Boehner are business-oriented good-old-boys, dull ”establishment” Republicans in every way. In policy terms, they are very conservative, as were both Bushes and the 2008 GOP presidential candidate, John McCain. All of these post-1990 establishment Republicans want to gut business regulations and steadily lower taxes on corporations and high-income Americans. But at the same time, these very conservative, business-friendly Republicans believe in some level of responsible government in the United States. They have been wary about seeking the elimination of major ent.i.tlement programs such as Medicare or Social Security, or huge reductions in residual protections for the poor. Prior to 2011, they repeatedly supported raising the federal debt ceiling to allow the U.S. government to meet fiscal obligations. Until recently-indeed as recently as the McCain campaign in 2008-leading GOPers also espoused some interest in cap-and-trade legislation to deal with environmental threats in a market-based way; argued for health care regulations and subsidies that might extend coverage to some of the uninsured; and supported immigration reforms amounting to more than border fortifications and deportations. Establishment Republicans also believed in striking compromises to get legislation pa.s.sed, and the pragmatic GOP strategists who ran their election campaigns were willing to strike an appearance of moderation. Many organized business lobbies also play complex games, supporting both Republicans and pro-corporate Democrats, and pus.h.i.+ng for resolution of knotty issues to keep government and the economy going.

But the GOP establishment of a few years ago now looks hopelessly pa.s.se, lapped by hard-liners further to the nether-right. All along, there have been highly ideological right-wing billionaires who just do not see things the same way as regular establishment Republicans. These hard-liners are the ones seizing the Tea Party moment, pus.h.i.+ng aside and cowing the GOP insiders. Here the context is important: wealth and income have become so amazingly unequal in the United States that a few hundred billionaire families have the means to push their own worldview in civic and political affairs.31 The top 1% of Americans own more than a third of America's wealth, a percentage that has increased steadily since the 1970s and appears to have grown even despite the 2008 financial crisis.32 That wealth has accrued disproportionately to the very richest of those very rich people. Especially when it comes to setting agendas for public discussion and policy debates-encouraging entire convoys of organizations or officeholders to move in one direction or another-the super-duper wealthy in America today can make quite a difference.

At the very highest levels of wealth and disposable income, resources are so stupendous that the personal outlooks, even quirks, of the super-rich matter. Billionaire philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates are one example. Their charitable organization has done tremendous good in, for instance, combating AIDS. But the effect of their immense wealth has been to redirect vast swathes of public health policy and educational reform efforts, sometimes with unintended consequences.33 No one elected them; they are not democratically accountable. But the Gates family is not alone in its outsize influence on policy. On the far right of the ideological and policy spectrum lurk politically active super-rich families and a.s.sociated inst.i.tutions named Coors, Scaife, Olin and, above all, Koch.34 With wealth ama.s.sed primarily in the petrochemical industry, the brothers Koch, David and Charles, add up to one of the richest multi-billionaire families in America, indeed in the world.35 They also happen to be the sons of Fred Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society, ”known for its highly skeptical view of governance and for spreading fears of a Communist takeover”-the same sort of views the Koch sons are pus.h.i.+ng today.36 The Koch brothers are very active in politics as well as philanthropy, willing to throw their money around to create and support policy think tanks, foundations, and university programs; to fight political enemies in the media; to support ma.s.sive and sustained lobbying efforts; and to further the careers of the most extreme right-wingers that can win elections.37 As for why they are involved in politics, the Koch brothers do not so much believe in limited government as in almost no government at all: vanis.h.i.+ng taxes on the very rich; privatization of Social Security and Medicare; defunding of all but the most residual social programs; and evisceration of regulation of industrial firms, especially in the sectors where they make their fortune.38 In the preTea Party era, the Koch brothers were not as central as they wanted to be in GOP decision-making. The policy organizations they support-such as the ultra-libertarian Cato Inst.i.tute and the advocacy group Americans for Prosperity-did not have, in their view, sufficient sway in shaping public debates and legislation.

After the 2008 election, the Koch brothers and their organizational allies were determined to do all they could to limit, humiliate, and defeat Barack Obama and other Democrats in the U.S. Congress and the states, majority democracy be d.a.m.ned. Even after President Obama ran the successful operation to kill Osama Bin Laden, David Koch was quoted belittling the president and renewing the outlandish claim that Obama is a ”socialist.”39 Blocking Obama's legislative agenda and setting up his defeat in 2012 has clearly been goal number one for the Koch coterie.40 But the Koch brothers and their allies also want to remake the GOP, ensuring that the Republican Party does not tack back toward the middle in rhetoric or policy-making. The Koch brothers are fighting not only against Democrats, but against other GOP powerbrokers like Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, who have their own fundraising organizations to promote their preferred brand of Republicanism. As a Politico article put it, Charles and David Koch aim to ”reorient the conservative political apparatus around free-market, small government principles and candidates, and away from the electability-over-principles approach they see Rove and Gillespie as embodying.”41 The Tea Party eruption in early 2009 was just what the doctor ordered for far-right ideological billionaires like the Kochs, and others of their ideological ilk roving just beyond the edge of the GOP establishment. Suddenly, prospects were better for ultra-free-market funders and affiliated idea-pushers to try to link up with gra.s.sroots Tea Partiers-and in due course to speak in their name. In fact, as we are about to see, some of the key national organizations that leapt into the fray very early, and have stayed the course most effectively, have direct or indirect ties to the Koch brothers. But not only to them, because the Kochs are indicative of a larger coterie of wealthy actors trying for some time to tug the GOP ever further toward the right.

FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity Jump into the Fray.

Just a day after the Santelli rant, the national advocacy organization Freedom-Works dispatched staffers and posted website tips on organizing and locating Tea Party rallies. Soon the organization's President Matt Kibbe and its Chairman d.i.c.k Armey teamed up to write a book they dubbed a ”manifesto” for the Tea Party movement.42 Clearly FreedomWorks was delighted when Tea Party protests started, and did all it could to help conservatives connect with them. But FreedomWorks was hardly some brand-new insurgent ent.i.ty. Indeed, the group had been promoting the ”Tea Party” idea for years.

The DC-headquartered organization by the name FreedomWorks commenced in 2004 as a professionally staffed advocacy organization devoted to training citizens and politicians at both the state and national levels on behalf of an agenda that includes reducing taxes and removing regulations on business, privatizing Social Security and reducing social-welfare programs, and furthering tort reform and school vouchers. These are key anti-government goals on the ideological right. The organization's roots went back even further than 2004-to the Koch-supported and directed think tank, Citizens for a Sound Economy, which operated from 1977 until a breakup in 2003. That breakup gave rise, in turn, to both FreedomWorks and another policy-advocacy group called Americans for Prosperity. During its lifetime, the mother s.h.i.+p Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) received at least $13 million in funding from the Koch family, along with major donations from other right-wing conservatives.43 After the CSE breakup, Americans for Prosperity continued to enjoy direct funding and leaders.h.i.+p through Koch Industries and the Koch brothers.44 FreedomWorks switched its funding to other industry sources and staffed up with former lobbyists from corporate sectors interested in deregulation.45 Both DC-based organizations continued to push the same overall anti-government agenda, and the Tea Party moment has been propitious for both organizations.

With the opening provided by the Santelli rant, FreedomWorks built activist connections. It helped to orchestrate the angry town hall protests against health reform in August 2009, co-sponsored Tea Party rallies, and gained new leverage in 2010 with GOPers elected with its endors.e.m.e.nt or the support of other Tea Partyidentified groups. FreedomWorks has, however, remained largely a national operation with only a handful of state-level staffers, while the other CSE off spring, Americans for Prosperity, appears to have gained even more ground during the Tea Party effervescence.

Riding the Tea Party wave, the AFP ballooned its contact lists from about 270,000 in 2008 to 1.5 million in 2011, while also expanding its network of coordinators to reach 32 states.46 AFP staffers and volunteer activists often appear at Tea Party rallies, and the organization regularly pays to transport protestors across the country and even to international events.47 AFP is also building extensive state networks. In Arizona, for example, Tom Jenney, leader of the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers, incorporated his organization as AFP's Arizona chapter. Jenney's strong local connections make him quite effective in connecting with and mobilizing local Tea Parties in Arizona. Similarly, in Wisconsin, state-level AFP staffers and adherents were involved in the rallies mounted in early 2011 to support GOP Governor Scott Walker during his efforts to push through state legislation disabling public sector labor unions.48 As this suggests, ideological right-wing billionaires and their advocacy organizations not only want to push their own ideas and values; they want to break the organizational capacities of their political opponents. From their perspective, it is great to be able to turn out local Tea Partiers to counter pro-union demonstrators wherever such battles are afoot.

Using the Tea Party as backdrop, Americans for Prosperity is trying to reshape public discussions and attract widespread conservative support for ultra-free-market ideas about slas.h.i.+ng taxes and business regulation and radically restructuring social expenditure programs. Speakers, videos, and articles are offered to Tea Party groups and sympathizers, as they have been provided to gra.s.sroots conservatives for many years. Back in 2008, the Wisconsin branch of Americans for Prosperity gave its ”Defender of the American Dream” Award to GOP Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin after he developed a budget ”RoadMap” that foreshadowed the radical budget he presented (and that the GOP House supported) in early 2011.49 The Ryan budget entails huge new tax cuts for the rich; major reductions in Medicaid, college aid, and other programs for lower and lower-middle-income Americans; and the phasing out of Medicare's guaranteed health coverage for the elderly after 2021. The aim is to realize radical policy goals pushed by the Cato Inst.i.tute and other Koch-funded organizations since the late 1970s.50 Starting in the late spring of 2011, all the major national advocacy groups floating around the Tea Party pushed the Ryan budget and encouraged gra.s.sroots partic.i.p.ants and public sympathizers to get behind it.

GOP Politicos Jump on the Tea Party Bandwagon.

Just as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity found in the Tea Party eruption fresh openings for pus.h.i.+ng ideas and seeding activism, GOP-linked political action committees quickly found greener pastures, too. Political action committees (PACs) allow their sponsors to raise money and dispatch it to favored electoral candidates. It is also perfectly possible for a PAC, at the same time, to encourage a.s.sisted candidates to buy campaign services from businesses linked to the PAC itself. Money can be raised and deployed to do double duty-enhancing the PAC directors' political clout and buoying their business bottom line. Not surprisingly, Tea Party effervescence has given rise to many PACs, including ent.i.ties set up in the states to let Tea Party leaders such as Jerry DeLemus in New Hamps.h.i.+re collect checks and wield influence.51 We would need another book to track all of the organizations expanded or newly launched to capitalize on the Tea Party.52 But perhaps the most visible example has been a PAC launched in the summer of 2009 called the ”Tea Party Express.”

Again, once we look closely, we find not a new venture run by true insurgents, but instead, a newly labeled arm of a Republican PAC called ”Our Country Deserves Better,” based in Sacramento, California, and linked to the GOP political consulting and public relations firm of Russo, Marsh, and Rogers. The key figure is Sal Russo, who has worked to elect Republicans all the way back to Ronald Reagan.53 During the 2008 presidential campaign, Russo's Our Country PAC achieved some notoriety for a series of anti-Obama campaign commercials deemed misleading by the nonpartisan fact-checkers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center.54 One adfeatured actors pretending to be various foreign leaders, including Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, North Korea's Kim Jong-il, and Cuba's Fidel Castro, laughing together about Obama's willingness to meet without preconditions. The ad concluded ”Barack Obama: No Match for America's Enemies.” Other anti-Obama ads trumpeted the controversial views of Obama's one-time pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and disseminated the rumor that President Obama refuses to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. Obama won election anyway, leaving Russo and friends in search of new openings. When the new Tea Party label gained fas.h.i.+on on the right, Russo teamed up with Howard Kaloogian, a conservative GOP state lawmaker, and Mark Williams, a conservative radio talk show host, to relabel part of their PAC's activities the ”Tea Party Express.”

By late 2009 and into 2010, dozens of GOP office-seekers were thrilled to link their fortunes to the new effervescence. This allowed Tea Party Express (TPE) to raise and spend over $2.7 million on candidates across the country, including several of the most prominent Tea Party candidates.55 To the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, TPE supported Scott Brown in his successful and pivotal January 2010 bid to win the Ma.s.sachusetts Senate seat previously held by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. The Ma.s.sachusetts effort notched an early scalp, signaling heft for TPE and establis.h.i.+ng it as an electoral difference-maker. Thereafter, TPE went on to help fund Sharron Angle's campaign to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and also contributed to the campaigns of Tea Partyoriented Republicans who mounted primary challenges against moderate GOP inc.u.mbents. Important instances have included Christine O'Donnell's 2010 primary campaign against Mike Castle in Delaware; Joe Miller's primary campaign against Lisa Murkowski in Alaska; and primary challenges in the 2012 cycle by Tea Party candidates trying to displace Indiana Senator Richard Lugar and Maine Senator Olympia Snowe.56 These campaigns have been good business for TPE's founders; when TPE funds Tea Party candidates, it also promotes and purchases campaign services from Russo, Marsh, and Rogers.57 Beyond electoral activities, Tea Party Express has sponsored bus tours that roam the country to synchronize with other Tea Party events and whip up gra.s.sroots enthusiasm among conservative voters. The first TPE bus tour coincided with the 2009 August recess, when the health care reform debate reached a fever pitch and dozens of lawmakers faced hostile audiences at local town halls. Tours continued over the next year and a half, with locations chosen to bolster other Tea Party efforts to put pressure on embattled moderate or liberal legislators in tight electoral races. One event that received a great deal of media coverage was the 2010 tour stop held in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's hometown of Searchlight, Nevada. The tiny town was flooded by thousands of Tea Party faithful-an event described as ”Woodstock minus the LSD” by one attendee.58 Apart from the entertainment they provide at rallies, TPE does not have meaningful ties to local activists, and there have been significant tensions between TPE and other national organizations involved in the Tea Party.59

An Umbrella Organization Reaches Out to the Gra.s.sroots.

Last but not least in this roundup of key national players is the Tea Party Patriots (TPP), whose website was up and running within days of the original Santelli rant. Co-founders and key players in Tea Party Patriots are Jenny Beth Martin, previously employed as a GOP consultant and the former head of a Tea Party group in Georgia, and Mark Meckler, a businessman from California who had worked on conservative causes and helped organize a Tea Party in Sacramento.60 Dubbing itself the ”official gra.s.sroots American movement,” TPP has developed the strongest ties to gra.s.sroots activists.

TPP was originally supported by FreedomWorks, which has launched other nominally gra.s.sroots efforts in the past.61 Email exchanges in 2009 indicate that FreedomWorks had a lot of say about TPP activities, at least in the early months.62 TPP also lines up in lockstep with FreedomWorks on certain issues where gra.s.sroots activists seem to have no say or involvement. In the spring of 2011, for example, the Tea Party Patriots' homepage bore a lengthy statement of opposition to net neutrality, a policy also opposed by FreedomWorks and the telecommunications industry.63 But this issue was literally never raised in any of our Tea Party meetings or interviews. The prominent TPP stance on net neutrality is not attributable to gra.s.sroots mobilization.