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 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."

The coal industry front group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) is seeking public relations help "in targeting the public, politicians, interest groups, and the media" on the national level, and also in Pennsylvania and Nevada. ABEC promotes coal as an "essential, affordable and increasingly clean" source of electricity. The National Journal recently reported that ABEC's budget for PR, advertising and "grassroots" organizing will nearly quadruple, from $8 million to $30 million a year. "Two words sum up why" the coal industry and its allies "opened their checkbooks," wrote the Journal -- "global warming." ABEC notes that "Nevada is perhaps one of the most volatile states in the west regions for ABEC's industry," so its PR work in the state will include issues management, as well as presidential candidate outreach and identifying "cities and communities critical to helping shape policy at the grassroots level." The Pennsylvania campaign will be less intense, involving "regulatory / legislative communications," "grassroots assistance," and various types of media outreach.

"Americans for American Energy," a front group for oil and gas companies, sent around an email incorrectly claiming that Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal supports its agenda. Freudenthal, who previously supported some "public education efforts" of AAE, told the Casper Star-Tribune that the group's recent email was "highly inappropriate" and "contains a description of initiatives which I wholeheartedly disagree with on a number of levels." AAE opposes environmental regulation of extractive industries, and the AAE website attempts to link environmental concerns to terrorism. A petition on its website states, "America is at War! And The U.S. Naval Oil Shale Reserve is Under Attack! While Americans fight overseas defending America's access to vital energy supplies, we are under attack here at home. Liberal lawyers and environmental extremists are attacking the U.S. Naval Oil Shale Reserve, trying to prevent America from producing American energy there."

"As the 2008 U.S. election starts to sizzle, the Indian outsourcing firms have returned to win Washington over as veritable insiders, slicker and better connected than ever," reports Anand Giridharadas. Nasscom, a trade group that represents Indian outsourcing firms, has hired Robert Blackwill, a Barbour, Griffith and Rogers lobbyist also working for former Iraq prime minister Ayad Allawi. Indian executives have "met with aides to all the major presidential hopefuls," while their lobbyists have met with more than 100 U.S. Congressional offices. The Indian outsourcing firms are working "with research firms like the Brookings Institution to generate sympathetic research," and are "waging proxy battles through local front organizations, which spare them from appearing to be foreigners with an agenda. They provide facts, figures and arguments to trade groups like the Information Technology Association of America and to Indian-American political groups. Then they watch as those groups arrange for seemingly neutral voices to champion their causes in the newspapers or before Congress."

Whitman and Rudy Giuliani near New York's Ground Zero, 2001"Was it wrong to try to get the city back on its feet as quickly as possible?" an exasperated Christine Todd Whitman asked members of Congress. The occasion was Whitman's first appearance before the House subcommittee investigating her handling of New York air quality issues post-9/11, when she headed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"Absolutely not," she continued. "Safety was first and foremost, but we weren't going to let the terrorists win."

There are many critics of the EPA's response to the admittedly unprecedented attacks. In August 2003, the EPA's own inspector general reported that there was not "sufficient data and analyses" to claim -- as Whitman did on September 18, 2001 -- that New York's air was "safe to breathe." The inspector general also found that EPA statements were confusing even to experienced toxicologists, and may have contributed to low rates of respirator use among Ground Zero workers. In February 2006, federal judge Deborah Batts called Whitman's statements post-9/11 "misleading" and "conscience shocking." In June 2007, the Government Accountability Office identified serious, continuing problems with how Whitman's EPA addressed indoor contamination in lower Manhattan.

The issue is more than academic. Since 2001, some 70 percent of Ground Zero workers -- tens of thousands of people, many without health insurance -- have had respiratory problems, including chronic illnesses, according to one medical study. Two deaths have been linked to World Trade Center dust, and reports of rare cancers are on the rise.

Yet in her Congressional testimony on June 25, 2007, Christie Whitman dismissed criticisms of her former agency as "misinformation, innuendo and outright falsehoods." Presumably, the nuclear power industry admires Whitman's rhetorical chutzpah.

"Two lobbyists with lengthy resumes in New Jersey government set up a conference call with the media last week to announce the formation of the New Jersey Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition (NJ ACRE), notes an Asbury Park Press editorial. The coalition will "advocate for nuclear energy and, more specifically, a 20-year license extension for the aging Oyster Creek plant" in Lacey, N.J. However, "the lobbyists neglected to point out they are being paid by Exelon Corp., Oyster Creek's owner. There also was no mention of that fact on the coalition's Web site until a news story about their being front men for Exelon appeared in Friday's Asbury Park Press." Since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "is expected to reach a decision on relicensing by January," reasons the paper, "much of the lobbyists' energy will be directed at the decision-makers themselves." Judging by a press release, one of NJ ACRE's arguments is that "the loss of Oyster Creek and the need to replace its electricity in the face of steadily rising demand would cause significant economic hardship." The release says shutting down Oyster Creek would cost $190 million in increased energy prices and $126 million in lost "economic activity," citing a study funded by Exelon.

From the SiCKO website"A multifaceted counteroffensive against Michael Moore's film about the health care industry" is beginning, reports Elizabeth Solomont. To counter the movie Sicko, "free market think tanks and the drug companies are already mobilizing. ... Several organizations staging responses to 'Sicko' receive funding from pharmaceutical companies, including the Manhattan Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Pacific Research Institute," notes Solomont, citing SourceWatch. "It definitely has to be rebutted," said the Pacific Research Institute's Sally Pipes. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America's Ken Johnson called the film a "biased, one-sided attack." Health Care America, "whose Web site says it is funded in part by pharmaceutical manufacturers," held a conference call with reporters, "to discuss what Michael Moore left out of his movie." A press release from FreedomWorks says the conservative lobbying group will also weigh in, with its "nationwide grassroots army ... handing out information at movie theaters that exposes Moore's hypocrisy, points out the problems associated with government-run health care, and promotes the FreedomWorks solution of removing existing government barriers that prevent Americans from being able to use the free market to choose the care that suits their individual needs."

At the "Utah Energy Summit," Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer called for more federal money to develop "clean coal" as an alternative to petroleum and a solution to global warming. As David Roberts notes, the summit organizer is Jim Sims of Policy Communications, "a long-time lobbyist for extractive industries" and the head of front groups such as Partnership for the West and the Save Our Species Alliance, "an astroturf organization created for the purpose of convincing the public to accept the gutting of the Endangered Species Act. ... Remember: despite the new moniker, clean coal is coal, a fossil fuel backed by a fossil fuel industry. It's the same Big Coal with deep ties in state and federal government and a long history of corruption. It's an industry that's spent practically a century entrenching itself and fighting off competitors. It founded the 20-year campaign of obfuscation and denial on global warming. Now it's selling 'alternative energy.'"

"The [pro-Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling] coalition was industry-driven. That was the exact opposite of how to do it," said Dutko Group lobbyist Stephen Brown. Brown is working with major chemical companies "to create a new coalition aligned with consumer groups to press for a legislative remedy to high prices for natural gas," called the Consumers Alliance for Affordable Natural Gas. Coalition members include the American Chemistry Council, Dow Chemical, and DuPont; the 60 Plus Association, Consumer Federation of America, and AFL-CIO "will become increasingly involved," said Brown. The coalition's goal is "to produce a stand-alone natural-gas bill," likely to include measures "reducing drilling restrictions."