We are not trying to be overly critical of OSPIRG’s goals. The premise of OSPIRG is not, in and of itself, terrible – saving the environment is laudable. However, the way OSPIRG funds its operation is. The point of having student fees is not to fund a state or national lobbying organization, which is exactly what OSPIRG is.
The Supreme Court decision for the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Scott Southworth delineates the boundary between the fee-funding process and “viewpoint neutrality,” which demands that the fee-distribution process not consider a group’s viewpoints. OSPIRG is quick to point out that mandatory fees are protected by the First Amendment; but this is not a First Amendment issue. The principles are simple: OSPIRG is a public policy and lobbying organization that uses students to fund its causes – in many cases, poorly received “academic” studies conducted off campus.
In 1998, a student-led ballot campaign successfully ousted OSPIRG from campus. The students had spoken, and they had had enough of OSPIRG, its uncontrolled spending and its lack of fiscal transparency. Less than a year later, the Executive called a “special election,” the sole purpose of which was to bring OSPIRG, formerly a student group, back to campus as a contract group. The constitutional validity of the election was questionable; the election, as it took place, resembled a regular election more than a special election – an apparent violation of the Constitution circa 1998. Unlike a regular election, however, there was no Voter’s Guide, leaving many students unaware of its existence.
The pressure to get OSPIRG reinstated was crushing, and the ASUO created much of the pressure. Since 1999, the ASUO has contracted OSPIRG to provide services to University students. Other contract groups include LTD and the Child Care Subsidy, which may not benefit every student, but which benefit enough to justify their high operating costs. Historically, the ASUO has advocated on behalf of OSPIRG, often declaring its virtues as a vigilant proponent of the consumer good.
But what benefit do students receive? The benefit students receive from OSPIRG is incommensurate with the amount of student fees that they pay out. Too often, however, the ASUO puts a premium on OSPIRG’s activities – almost all of which take place off campus, performed by non-students. Even when the campus PIRG releases a report, as it recently did about the high prices of textbooks, the odds are that the research came from elsewhere. The recent textbook study touted by OSPIRG originated at MASSPIRG, at the University of Massachusetts. The PIRG system is national, and the PIRGs work together on national campaigns. By now everyone knows that the Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group’s money goes to fund the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group in Portland – a process that obfuscates fiscal transparency – but the PIRG system is also national, taking between $10 to $20 million annually.
Today, OSPIRG goes before the Programs Finance Committee to appeal its original budget, which was set at $112,077. Even if students agree with OSPIRG’s goals, they should ask themselves: Is this group worth $112,077?