Government interests drive activist group

For those of us who read George Orwell’s utopian nightmare
“1984” in euphoria, Week 6 at UCLA was a grand display.
The campus brimmed with animated student activists who sought to
enlist the support of their peers in a radical movement toward
totalitarianism. And they did so successfully, becoming the
beneficiaries of tens of thousands of dollars. Most of this money
will be wired to the bank accounts of lobbyists and activists who
wish to expand the role and presence of Big Brother in our
lives.

Of course, members of the organization in question didn’t
advertise their big government agendas. Instead, they approached
students with the simple question: “Have you pledged for the
environment yet?” Drawn either by peer pressure, guilt or
images of koala bears and caribou, more than 2,000 students agreed
to donate $5 of their tuition each quarter to the California Public
Interest Research Group.

Far from being an apolitical environmental group, CALPIRG is
only one of many state offices of U.S. PIRG ““ a huge
organization that is, according to Fox News, “sponsored,
endorsed and overseen by Ralph Nader.” Since the association
relies on individual contributions, its connection with
universities is practical. At some colleges, like the University of
Oregon and the University of Wisconsin, contributions to state
PIRGs are mandatory and nonrefundable. At others, they are
stealthily gained, unless the student un-checks an inconspicuous
little box on his class registration form. And at others still, the
money is automatically taken from the student’s class fees.
The student can later submit an application for a refund.

Certainly, we all want clean water, clean air, healthy forests
and a sound environment. But does CALPIRG use its money to achieve
all these wonderful things? In an e-mail, UCLA chapter chair Jolene
Mitchell told me “about 80 percent of the money is used to
hire advocates that lobby on issues students are concerned about.
… The other 20 percent is used for operating costs like rent,
postage, phone, and copies.” So instead of actually enhancing
the environment, CALPIRG hires people to lobby for legislation that
will do it for them.

The trouble here is twofold. First, private individuals with
financial motivations are far more effective in helping the
environment than government bureaucrats and legislation. If PIRGs
used their millions to support this type of effort, the results
would be more significant and positive. Second, and more
importantly, the PIRGs’ demands of the government are
invariably connected with coercion and force. U.S. PIRG stipulates
that the government must stop drilling, regulate business and
legislate the environment ““ demands that inflate the powers
of the state and limit the rights of the individual.

But the environment is only one of U.S. PIRG’s ““ and
by extension, each state PIRGs’ ““ campaigns. U.S. PIRG
fights for health care, fair media practices, playground safety and
toy safety. All of these are really good things. But at what cost?
If the cost was split by those who voluntarily chose to share it,
that would be fine. But the cost is almost forced on people who
might or might not want to take part in it.

If the $5 that is deducted from student accounts goes to the
environment, playgrounds and the health industry directly, the
world would be a better place. But the money really goes to
lobbyists who brief the government on how to spend more taxpayer
income and how to control more aspects of our lives.

The state PIRGs have long colluded with universities in this
endeavor. On the UCLA campus and others, CALPIRG has a unique
status that allows it to automatically claim money from
students’ tuitions ““ a built-in process. Almost no
other political organization can do this. So why should they? U.S.
PIRG defends its practice dubiously by citing the First Amendment.
But this very same U.S. PIRG is lobbying against soft money,
corporate contributions to political campaigns, and individual
contributions of over $100 ““ blatant infringements of the
First Amendment and property rights.

PIRGs also fight to give candidates free and equal TV time
(which will give a big boost to political failures like Nader),
eliminate ATM fees, and battle global warming by controlling
business, small and big. But has it not occurred to the PIRGs that
“free TV time” is only free to its recipients, that ATM
machines cost money to maintain, and that humans have a right to
their own lives?

Most laughable is the PIRGs’ democracy project, the
synopsis of which can be found on its Web site: “CALPIRG
supports political reform to make government accountable to
ordinary citizens. Centuries of experience show that democratic
government ““ government of the people, by the people, and for
the people ““ is inevitably better than rule by elites, no
matter how “˜enlightened’ they may be.” But how
are these pretty words of faith in the people at all compatible
with CALPIRG’s entire function: to expand the privileges of
government by denying the rights of individual.

PIRGs, in their own words, claim to be “an advocate for
the public interest.” Orwell must be spinning in his
grave.

Hovannisian is a first-year history student. E-mail him at
ghovannisian.media.ucla.edu.