In 1971, Ralph Nader and New York lawyer Donald K. Ross outlined their vision for a consortium of campus-based groups that would lobby on behalf of progressive causes, including those pertaining to the environment, health care and the economy. This would become the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) system. To bankroll their lobbying organizations, they brainstormed a coercive funding process whereby college students would pick up the tab. The University of Oregon was one of the first to house Nader’s pet project.
For 37 years, OSPIRG has relied on students for its funding. Last week, the Programs Finance Committee once again acquiesced to OSPIRG’s interests by continuing to fund the group, though without giving it an increase, a decision that OSPIRG is appealing. Regardless of the appeals outcome, OSPIRG will continue to receive at least $112,077, all from students.
This would be less of an issue if the money actually stayed on campus, thus benefiting students. It doesn’t. Every penny out of students’ pockets goes to Portland. Some of the money may trickle back to Eugene, but OSPIRG’s primary day-to-day functions remain 110 miles to the north, home of the state PIRG.
That’s right, there are two OSPIRGs: the Oregon Student Public Research Interest Group and the Oregon State Public Research Interest Group, and they coincidentally share the same Portland office. The state PIRG has a professional staff, all bankrolled primarily by students and canvassers. Although OSPIRG provides some students with “internship” possibilities or jobs, generally as canvassers, the benefits to students could fit on a small flyer – the kind OSPIRG conveniently litters around campus. Frankly, forcing students to pay for activities from which they do not directly benefit is unconscionable.
Naturally, the University’s Campus Organizer for OSPIRG, Liz Karas, refutes criticism that OSPIRG’s money is misused. “Student’s get a real bargain out of (OSPIRG),” Karas said, claiming the reason OSPIRG’s funds are pooled in Portland and then later redistributed is because it’s more efficient. The efficiency of OSPIRG’s accounting practices are questionable, as the primary reason the PFC chose not to increase funding was a result of an incomplete budget. This isn’t uncommon for OSPIRG, which is often mired in controversy as a result of its lack of transparency. This isn’t an issue concerning the group’s mission, goals or speech, it is a fiscal issue.
The recent activities of OSPIRG are a disparate collection of progressive causes. Karas said OSPIRG has worked on campaigns to raise thousands of dollars for the homeless, an ongoing campaign to lower textbook costs and protecting the Oregon coast from oil drilling. At best, these campaigns are only tenuously tied to student interests. Even if you believe that the Oregon coast deserves protection, or that the homeless need better shelter, a governing body – in this case, the PFC – should not swindle money from people on behalf of a lobbying institution.
Student money also goes to pay for “advocates” (another word for lobbyists) and poverty experts, but Karas maintains that the $112,077 inevitably returns to campus. How is this possible? OSPIRG has absolutely nothing to show for its profligate spending, except a multitude of continuing causes for which they profess to advocate.
OSPIRG is more concerned with maintaining its money flow than it is with providing services to students. Meanwhile, the PFC continues to fund OSPIRG while having only a general knowledge of what the money subsidizes. OSPIRG will appeal the PFC’s decision to continue funding the organization at its previous level, and Karas remains optimistic that the PFC’s “heart is in the right place.” The PFC should refrain from giving OSPIRG an increase; in the future, it should refrain from funding the group altogether. Students are more than deep pockets from which lobbyists can take money. If students must pay more than $600 per year to a bloated incidental fee, they should expect their money to at least stay on campus.