This has been a truly interesting read, but I don’t want to bore with my analysis rather clarify that not all PIRGs can be lumped into this critique. VPIRG (Vermont), AkPIRG (Alaska), and NYPIRG (New York) have a minimal affiliation with the national PIRG network and do all of their own hiring, and issue selection processes. MPIRG (Minnesota) has absolutely no affiliation with the national PIRG network and works exclusively on state level issues as dictated by their student members.
To my knowledge, these are the only PIRGs that operate outside of the confines of U.S. PIRG’s hiring and organizational structure. And of course, there is always the Canadian PIRGs.
We totally agree. And understand that, despite everything that has been presented here – the PIRG has great people. It just needs some change.
2 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Just to be clear, there are NO LAWS AGAINST CANVASSING. In fact, it is illegal to instill any policy against canvassing. This is because canvassing is protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution (remember that part where it says we have a right to peacefully assemble?).
Comment by REAL ANSWER ON SOLICITATION POLICIES October 25, 2010 @ 6:49 pmSoliciting is not covered under the first amendment since soliciting is when you are specifically selling a product, but not assembling for political purposes. While you are collecting money through canvassing, the money is used for political purposes, and therefore is protected by the First Amendment.
I don’t think anyone here is saying we should abolish canvassing or free speech, nor would we want that. We’re merely discussing the pros and cons of how PIRG approaches it and their organizational policies.
Comment by burnedoutbypirg October 29, 2010 @ 6:05 pm