The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator

Anti-OSPIRG rally tomorrow

The Reality Check campaign (blue shirts) will be hosting an anti-OSPIRG rally tomorrow in the EMU Amphitheater at noon. I’ve already been told by one student that the 3 kids they interacted with, who were wearing CCC shirts (red shirts) and lobbying kids to support OSPIRG were not, in fact, even students. With the fact that Amelie Rousseau has violated ASUO campaign rules already, it looks like things are beginning to get into full mcdisasterfuck mode. I look forward to grievances being filed.

Here’s the press release:

Tuesday March 30th
12:00 PM EMU Amphitheater
Rally against OSPIRG

The Reality Check campaign will be hosting a one hour rally against special interest group OSPIRG’s request for a budget. The event will consist of information on why OSPIRG should not receive funding, as well as a display of just how much money is going off campus. Join us as we fight the embedded interests of the ASUO that for years have been lobbying and mishandling your hard earned money.
For questions contact Jeremy Cabalona, campaign manager for Reality Check

  1. JMB says:

    “Con Court” is pretty much the most apropos name shortening ever.

  2. Bea says:

    really? I found the ospirg and crisis center measures to be pretty biased.

  3. NGA says:

    I believe con court approves the language

  4. Gsim says:

    Jesus, who wrote that ballot measure? Isn’t the language in those things suppose to be neutral and accurate?

    The way its written now I don’t know why they forgot to mention that OSPRIG brought peace to the Middle East, cured cancer and create beer flavored tits.

    Any idea who is responsible for approving it?

  5. C.T. Behemoth says:

    The problem is that the OSPIRG non-students don’t disclose the fact that they’re not students to the people they talk to…along with a lot of other things. It’s dishonest at its core, and it begs a lot of serious questions, some of which are outlined above.

    Why OSPIRG insists on being so obnoxiously combative is beyond me, given that they would enjoy a lot more support if they changed a few things around and decided to directly benefit the students who are (have been) giving them their money.

  6. nike urbanism duk says:

    A large green EWOK

  7. Bea says:

    Hey OC,

    quick question. Who wrote the language of the ballot measures?

  8. Monica says:

    Even though I’m not a student, I feel I should be able to advocate whom I’d vote for in the election if given the opportunity. I plan on attending the UO as soon as this summer, plus I work on campus and decisions made by the ASUO (bus contracts, parking, etc.) affect my life.

    Common Sense: you make a great point that non-students advocating a student group/policy is slightly shady. The OSPIRG debate has shown how non-student involvement can create distrust in an organization, despite its best intentions.

    At the same time, I don’t think it’s that big of a deal if non-students help out in a campaign. Because I don’t pay the i-fee, I don’t get to vote in the elections – and that’s totally fair. I won’t speak for the other volunteers, but I am limiting my involvement in campaigns because of my non-student status. However, that shouldn’t prevent me from supporting a campaign altogether.

    I agree with Curtis: it’s pretty harmless if one more person is wearing a t-shirt or chatting people up on the street. It all boils down to increasing outreach to students, a tactic that can help or hinder a campaign. Obviously it’s more credible to have students on your campaign, but at the same time it’s no different than any other person on the street telling you to vote for someone whose campaign you know nothing about.

  9. JMB says:

    How is it that OSPIRG can get all these people to volunteer their time when it comes to getting money for OSPIRG, but they can’t get them to volunteer this time to do the stuff OSPIRG claims they can’t do without a budget to pay people? Not to mention them spending money (no doubt funds from LCC and SOU laundered through the state organization) to pay for t-shirts designed solely to support their attempt to get even more money. OSPIRG is a massive pyramid scheme where every dollar that goes in is spent on trying to get 3 more dollars to come in.

  10. Common Sense says:


    I think Sudsy is using his/her analogy to point out the obvious: that the principle concern w/ OSPIRG is that it sends students money off campus thereby not directly benefiting students (at least not $117,000 worth of benefits).

    For non-students to be bumming around campus asking for support for a “student” program only serves to exemplify the reason OSPIRG should not be re-instituted.

    For the record, I probably wouldn’t trust a political party that primarily draws its support from foreigners for this would lead me to believe that the party does not hold my interests at heart, but those of the foreigner.

  11. Curtis says:

    Is the question whether it’s acceptable for people visiting from other countries to volunteer for political campaigns while they are in the United States?


    Again, I’m not even sure who you are talking about here, but it seems pretty innocuous for folks from any campaign to talk to their non-student friends and family about helping out.

  12. Sudsy says:

    So, by that logic, Canadians should tell Americans who to vote for President?

  13. Curtis says:

    I’m not sure who you might be talking about from the campaign, but even if that were true, I don’t believe there’s a rule against non-students helping out a friend’s campaign, is there?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.