The New York Times headline seems hopelessly naive.
Odd Alliance: Business Lobby and Tea Party
That "odd" alliance goes way back to version 1.2 of the tea party movement -- as it quickly morphed from "grass roots" movement (only the first few months of its existence) to being an angry, white greed machine, a corporate tool with opportunistic ties to the Koch brothers' "Americans for Prosperity." So we're supposed to be surprised it is increasingly coupled with lobbyists?
... A Tea Party group in the United States, the Institute for Liberty, has vigorously defended the freedom of a giant Indonesian paper company to sell its wares to Americans without paying tariffs. The institute set up Web sites, published reports and organized a petition drive attacking American businesses, unions and environmentalists critical of the company, Asia Pulp & Paper.
Last fall, the institute’s president, Andrew Langer, had himself videotaped on Long Wharf in Boston holding a copy of the Declaration of Independence as he compared Washington’s proposed tariff on paper from Indonesia and China to Britain’s colonial trade policies in 1776.
Tariff-free Asian paper may seem an unlikely cause for a nonprofit Tea Party group. But it is in keeping with a succession of pro-business campaigns — promoting commercial space flight, palm oil imports and genetically modified alfalfa — that have occupied the Institute for Liberty’s recent agenda.
The Tea Party movement is as deeply skeptical of big business as it is of big government. ...NYT
Just caught on to that, Times? The story gets worse. International influence on American politics is a done deal, and the tea party movement is acting as facilitator.
Mr. Langer would not say who financed his Indonesian paper initiative. But his sudden interest in the issue coincided with a public relations push by Asia Pulp & Paper. And the institute’s work is remarkably similar to that produced by one of the company’s consultants, a former Australian diplomat named Alan Oxley who works closely with a Washington public affairs firm known for creating corporate campaigns presented as grass-roots efforts.
All of this has roots in the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision. The tea party's "Institute for Liberty" has no obligation, as a "non-profit," to reveals where its money comes from.
“If you can spend as much money as you want and remain anonymous, then it doesn’t matter if you’re an overseas company or the Koch brothers, you pay the same network of anti-regulatory front groups,” said Scott Paul, director of Greenpeace’s forest campaign.
Greenpeace has been one of the the targets for obliteration. Net neutrality is another.
With the rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009, the institute, by then under Mr. Langer, helped inject the issue into the national dialogue, and soon signs equating net neutrality with government oppression became a staple at Tea Party rallies.