Net profits: Chip Berlet tracks computer networks of the religious right

Afterimage, Feb-March, 1995 by Grant Kester

GK: Can you give an example of how you encounter these footprints of conservative researchers?

CB: I'd rather not trade secrets, you know.

GK: This is a question that may or may not relate directly to computer networks. It has to do with the relationship between using the Internet as a form of communication and information exchange, and, on the model of C-NET, using it as a tool for direct lobbying purposes within a controlled audience. (For example, "This bill is coming to committee, write your congress person with this information now, etc.") That would seem to raise questions about the 501(c)(3) status of organizations like NET. How can they get away with being a non-profit, and yet still engage in open lobbying for particular political interests?

CB: It is a dilemma. Even if you have 501(c)(3) status you are allowed to do a certain amount of political work. I've read some very compelling arguments that what Paul Weyrich does with NET crosses over the line of what's permissible as a 501(c)(3). But who wants to tell an elephant when it farts? Given Weyrich's clout it is politically inopportune to challenge him right now. I've asked people in Washington why NET's activities aren't being questioned and they say, because he'll roll over and crush us. Plus, its hardly a secret that labor unions do this too. However, I think that labor unions and other liberal or progressive groups have obeyed the law a little better; they do try to keep the 501(c)(3) information educational. They set up other entities to do the political outreach in the form of auxiliary organizations or PACs. They try to play the game within the limits, but I don't believe the Christian Right is playing the game within the limits.

GK: What role are on-line systems going to play in the political process and how does the conservative right use them now?

CB: Developing on-line networks exponentially increases your ability to share information and coordinate activism. It's stunning how much easier this makes your work. When I was writing a paper on the Gulf War and the role of LaRouche followers who were trying to infiltrate anti-war coalitions (and this wasn't even on a private level) I just posted a bunch of questions on Usenet conferences asking for e-mail from persons who might have run into LaRouche supporters. I received 50 messages in the first couple of days from all over the country. I don't think people understand the shift in the nature of research and coordination that has developed because of this kind of networking. Certainly corporations are aware of it; you wouldn't have Windows for Work Groups if people didn't understand the way networking can increase your productivity. During the 1992 Ross Perot campaign it was fascinating to see Libertarians on the Net jump into the Perot campaign. The circulation of documents on-line by the Perot supporters was one reason the Perot campaign was able to build a political support network so quickly.

The Civilian Militia and Patriot movements are using on-line systems to great effect. These are right-wing movements with an anti-government agenda that fear impending attack by government or UN troops and the establishment of a dictatorship as part of the creation of the New World Order. They are probably the first major social movement organized via telecommunications networks. That's the good news, the bad news is that 90% of the information they circulate is undocumented rumor and conspiracy theory, some of it based on classic white supremacist legal arguments or allegations of secret plots by international Jewish bankers. You can find their posts in Usenet conferences such as , , or .