Props to them.

As odious as the PIRG is, this is at least a step in the right direction. Good on Walsh for sticking to his guns on this one, even if his guns are smaller than we might like.

Yup. You have to admire Walsh’s willingness to tough it out despite the fact the rest of student government is now firmly concentrated on the upcoming election and pandering to groups. While at the Feb. 16 meeting, someone who I was sitting next to leaned over and asked “Why is Walsh doing this?” I believe the answer is “principles,” strangely enough.

What’s sad is that the PFC and the Senate know, for a fact, that OSPIRG’s funding is illegal but they do it anyway.

People want to get elected in the Spring and OSPIRG could bring a bunch of votes. But yeah there’s no excuse for essentially ignoring 6-6(e) of the PFC’s bylaws and not questioning whether or not OSPIRG is violating 6-7(a).

I like that the PIRGers have gotten so blatant about using student fees for direct political action.

You would’ve been apoplectic at both of the meetings. At the first meeting, OSPIRG board members handed out “guidelines for looking at our budget,” and claimed the group was “non-partisan” and “represent[ed] the public interest.” When I asked at that meeting how the public interest was determined, they said that people come up with specific ideas for campaigns and then ask OSPIRG’s board to fund it. There is no public polling or anything resembling curiosity into what the real public wants.

At the early meeting last night, one member stated that the new position would “increase OSPIRG’s political power.”

What’s sad is that the PFC and the Senate know, for a fact, that OSPIRG’s funding is illegal but they do it anyway. I like that the PIRGers have gotten so blatant about using student fees for direct political action. Now would be a good time for FIRE or some other motivated University student to revisit the issue that was visited in Rounds v. OSPIRG.