The Federal Communications Commission’s ex parte procedures allow companies, advocacy groups and real people to visit with FCC staff or write to the agency on important topics, provided they disclose publicly what was said in those meetings and filings. The ex parte process may seem obscure to most people, but these meetings have a significant impact on FCC decisionmaking. And, the FCC has a proposal on the table that – if it’s done right – could help amplify the public’s voice, while striking a major blow to corporate astroturf.

In-person and written advocacy are both key pieces of the rulemaking puzzle at the FCC, and the agency’s ex parte rules set out the framework for making much of that advocacy more transparent. So when the agency responded to in detail.

Unlike the Chamber, Free Press chose to engage substantively with the FCC. We proposed meaningful disclosure rules that would bring to light hidden conflicts of interest. Under our proposal, filers at the FCC that receive ongoing financial support or targeted contributions from a variety of interested parties – for example, the so-called Internet Innovation Alliance, which frequently fails to disclose its close ties to AT&T – would be required to disclose such contributions in their pleadings. Our proposal would realize the disclosure goals articulated by the Commission, without placing undue burdens on either the financial contributors or the FCC filers.

We didn’t just offer a policy proposal. We also urged some of our most active members to weigh in — individuals who support our work by telling lawmakers that media policy must be made in the public interest. We built an online form to help them be heard at the FCC, and more than 200 people filed comments with the FCC.

Some Washington insiders didn’t like this approach. One D.C. attorney who represents Big Media companies wrote a hyperbolic critique, implicitly calling Free Press “hypocritical” because we dare to encourage real people’s participation in government deliberations. (So much for a government of the people, for the people, and by the people….)

Let’s be clear: Activism and astroturf are two different things. Astroturf is industry masquerading as grassroots, as when companies create or fund organizations that purport to serve the public interest, but actually only serve their own corporate interests.

Real activists, like ours, aren’t funded by anyone. They are real people, and they speak for themselves. We are privileged to be able to amplify their voices in the halls of Congress and at the FCC, and we believe that their support of our agenda means we’re doing something right.

The purpose of conflict-of-interest disclosure rules is not to burden organizations that have well known relationships with companies, such as trade associations or other groups that exist to advance a clear and specific industry agenda. The purpose is to expose the organizations that claim to speak for the public but really speak for corporations, to make the voice of the actual public clearer, and to improve the transparency and democracy of FCC processes.

The FCC seems to get it – let’s hope the Chamber and its allies don’t throw the agency off course.