Founded by left-wing activist and former Presidential candidate Ralph Nader, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group is a 501(c)(4) organization that oversees a federation of state progressive advocacy groups also known as “PIRGs.” As the national organization for these independent state-based PIRGs, U.S. PIRG coordinates resources among its 47 state affiliates to make the “biggest impact” for its liberal advocacy efforts. The U.S. PIRG also serves as the “federal lobbying office for state PIRGs” seeking to make left-of-center state laws into federal policy and turning unsuccessful liberal federal lobbying efforts into state laws.¹

The PIRGs’ administrative and financial practices are highly controversial. The PIRG campus fundraising model has been sharply criticized for imposing hidden fees on students and then funneling those funds through the campus PIRG to both the state PIRG and the U.S. PIRG, leaving little money on campus where the funds were generated.²

Additionally, the U.S. PIRG is part of a larger network of like-minded and well-funded progressive organizations that seek to align themself with the PIRG network.³  The most notable of these organizations is the Fund For the Public Interest, which is seen as the fundraising arm of the U.S. PIRG and has been widely criticized for its abusive employment practices as it relates to students, being billed “the liberal sweatshop.”⁴ In 2016, U.S. PIRG was hammered as hypocritical for claiming to fight for progressive values while opposing the Obama administration’s expansion of employees subject to time-and-a-half overtime pay rules.⁵

Background

Growing out of the student activism of the 1960s and early 1970s, including “Nader’s Raiders,”⁶ Ralph Nader, along with lawyer Donald Ross, sought “to put into place a model based on the work of their book Action for a Change: A Student’s Manual for Public Interest Organizing. With Nader serving as founder and Ross visiting college campuses for recruitment, the concept of public interest research groups, or PIRGs…[came] to fruition.”⁷

PIRGs originated as college campus-based organizations.⁸ Over time, those campus PIRGs expanded to become “state PIRGs with Minnesota, Oregon, New York, and Massachusetts becoming the first states to do so.”⁹

State PIRGs are nonprofit nonpartisan, public-interest advocacy groups,” which Nader envisioned would be “grassroots lobbying groups for progressive legislation.”¹⁰ These groups are generally “independent and self-sustaining.”¹¹

In 1977, the PIRGs created their first national association, National PIRG Clearinghouse, which dissolved in 1979.¹²  Then in 1983, “several state PIRGs formed U.S. PIRG, a federation of state PIRGs and the national advocacy office.”¹³

Ties to Barack Obama

Around 1984, a year after graduating from college, Barack Obama, the future 44th President of the United States, “was hired by the New York Public Interest Research Group,” where he served as “a full-time organizer at City College in Harlem,” to mobilize student volunteers.”¹⁴

In 2004, then-Illinois State Senator Obama said to U.S. PIRG’s then-leader, Gene Karpinski: “I used to be a PIRG guy. You guys trained me well.’”¹⁵ Of this exchange, an observer subsequently wrote, “The fact that Obama still felt that way 25 years after he was a young and impressionable PIRG organizer is a terrifying statement that speaks directly to Obama’s competency and character.”¹⁶

Programs

U.S. PIRG bills itself as “a federation of independent, state-based PIRG organizations that advocate for the public interest.”¹⁷ There are forty-seven state PIRG groups that employ 400 organizers, policy analysts, scientists, and attorneys, and the organization has its national office in Denver, Colorado .^{18 19}

Located in Denver, Colorado the U.S. PIRG is the federal lobby office for the state PIRGs.²⁰ “U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US-PIRG), Full Filing – Nonprofit Explorer”. Propublica. Accessed August 31, 2022. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/42790740/202141339349304154/full[/note] Additionally, on national issues, the U.S. PIRG coordinates efforts, pools resources and shared expertise in order to create the “biggest impact.”²¹

The organization uses “targeted research, coalition building, outreach to citizen activists and the media, and direct lobbying of decision-makers,” to provide resources to their “a network of state-based consumer advocacy groups” around the country.²²

Meanwhile, State PIRGs, as part of the U.S. PIRG Federation, are “independent and self sustaining” organizations that deliver “results-oriented citizen activism” using “the time-tested tools of investigative research, media exposés, grassroots organizing, advocacy and litigation” on behalf of the U.S. PIRG’s state-specific priority issues.²³

Opposition to Nuclear Energy

US PIRG opposes nuclear energy and in 2011 asked the Obama administration to put a halt construction of new nuclear reactors and to suspend re-licensing of some of the existing nuclear fleet. ²⁴

Nuclear power plants produce no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, and as of 2021 accounted for 20 percent of American electricity production—the largest source of zero carbon electricity in the United States. ²⁵ An October 2018 proposal from The Nature Conservancy noted that zero-carbon nuclear plants produced 7.8 percent of total world energy output and recommended reducing carbon emissions by increasing nuclear capacity to 33 percent of total world energy output. ²⁶

Lobbying Activities

U.S. PIRG, as the “national office,” has traditionally been known as the “federal lobbying office for the state PIRGs.” “Lobbying by U.S. PIRG has focused on taking state PIRG initiatives to the national level.” For example, U.S. PIRG took bank legislation supported by MASSPIRG and NYPIRG and advocated for the creation of similar federal policy. Similarly, when U.S. PIRG’s efforts to pass federal legislation fail, they rely on state PIRGs to fight for state laws.²⁷

In total, U.S. PIRG has spent over $725k on federal lobbying expenses since 2012.²⁸

Year	U.S. PIRG Lobbying Expenses $
2012	$236,800
2013	$144,864
2014	$75,848
2015	$168,364
2016	$80,000
2017	$20,000
Total	$725,876

U.S. PIRG has lobbied on 357 bills over the past four Congresses, including a total of 872 specific reports or issues.²⁹

Congress	# Of Bills	# Of Reports & Specific Issues
112 (2011-2012)	93	247
113 (2013-2014)	118	317
114 (2015-2016)	123	285
115 (2017-2018)	23	23
Total	357	872

U.S. PIRG lobbied for and was seen as a “driving force”³⁰ in the creation of the 2012 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a controversial U.S. government agency which was founded as a result of the Dodd–Frank Act in the wake of the late-2000s recession and the financial crisis.³¹

Finances

U.S. PIRG’s annual IRS disclosure for 2014 indicates that the organization raised and spent approximately $1.5 million annually and had over $5 million in net assets at the end of the year.³²

Budget Item	2014 Amount	2013 Amount
Total Revenue $	$1,328,490	$1,473,459
Total Expenses $	$1,048,376	$1,508,634
Total Assets	$7,220,674	$5,590,658
Total Liabilities	$1,735,219	$397,279
Net Assets (End of Year)	$5,485,455	$5,193,379

The US. PIRG organization is “funded by dues contributions from member state PIRGs and individual memberships from its own canvass operations.”³³  As of 2003, Radley Balko indicated that ten percent of campus PIRG funds were funneled to U.S. PIRG’s national chapter.³⁴

The following is the revenue breakdown for U.S. PIRG in 2013 and 2014.³⁵ This breakdown shows that in 2014, over 50% of U.S. PIRG’s revenues came from “Membership dues”³⁶ but in 2013, the group did not declare any revenues due to that same source.³⁷

Support or Revenue Source	2014 Amount	2014 % of Revenue	2013 Amount
Membership Dues	$679,191	51.13%	$0
Other Contributions & Grants	$508,495	38.28%	$840,036
Program service revenue	$495,769	1.95%	$25,916
Investment income	$8,729	0.66%	$33,945
Other Revenue	$106,159	7.99%	$103,709
Total Support and Revenues	$1,328,490		$1,473,459

U.S. PIRG Structure & Relation to U.S. PIRG Education Fund

The U.S. PIRG is a distinct legal entity from the U.S. PIRG Education Fund. U.S. PIRG refers to this group, as its “sister C3.”³⁸ U.S. PIRG Education Fund is U.S. PIRG’s affiliated “tax-deductible research and education arm, funded mainly by foundation grants.”³⁹

Under this structure, the student PIRG (U.S. PIRG Education Fund) is a 501(c)(3) organization that can accept public funds but is limited in its ability to lobby, but the state PIRGs and U.S. PIRG are organized under 501(c)(4), meaning they cannot accept public funds but can lobby without limit.⁴⁰

Campus PIRG Funding Schemes

Critics have noted that the flow of money between Student PIRGs and State PIRGs — which sometimes share the same name and personnel — is deliberately confusing.⁴¹ Moreover, the campus-based PIRG funding system has been criticized for generating funds, using controversial, automatic, and complicated student activity fees or student government contracts, which are then funneled money to the PIRG’s state and national lobbying operations, leaving little if any money on the campus where its generated.

Radley Balko has written:

Each time a college student registers for classes, he or she is automatically billed somewhere between three and eight dollars, all of which goes directly to the local PIRG chapter.

There, it’s funneled directly to the state chapter, where it’s used to lobby state legislatures on issues like tougher emissions standards, campaign finance reform and a bevy of other environmental and anti-corporate causes. Very little if any of the money actually stays at the campus where it’s generated.

It’s also used as “seed money” for more fund-raising campaigns. And about 10 percent of the money goes to USPIRG, the national chapter, where it’s used to lobby on the federal level.⁴²

On more than one occasion, university PIRGs have been criticized or questioned for using these questionable funding schemes.⁴³  The Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway noted that though “PIRG tactics may vary across the country… It is fair to say that PIRG organizing everywhere has a shady reputation, even among those who would otherwise be the ideological compatriots of PIRGs.”⁴⁴

Another observer estimated that the PIRG nationwide “causes take in somewhere between $10 and $20 million annually from college students, most all of it unwittingly.”⁴⁵

Moreover, these critics note that this funding mechanism is hypocritical given PIRG’s stance on campaign finance. Balko wrote, “What’s remarkable is the blatant, transparent hypocrisy the PIRGS use to defend their tactics…Get it? The act of forcing students at state colleges to fund causes they don’t believe in is ‘protected speech,’ but voluntarily giving to a political candidate isn’t. Remarkable.”⁴⁶

Related Organizations

Public Interest Network

Also see Public Interest Network (Nonprofit)

Over time, organizations arose and tried to ally themselves with the PIRGs. These alliances eventually gave rise to the Public Interest Network.⁴⁷ Through The Public Interest Network PIRG allied organizations “work together on common progressive causes.”⁴⁸

Other organizations affiliated with the Public Interest Network are Environmental Action, Center for Public Interest Research, Toxics Action Center, Pesticide Watch, Green Century Funds, Green Corps, National Environmental Law Center, Frontier Group, Community Voters Project, Snowriders International, Accelerate Change, and Voices for Progress, and Impact.⁴⁹

Fund for the Public Interest

Also see Fund for the Public Interest (Nonprofit)

The Fund for the Public Interest is a separate organization founded in 1982 that has been described as “the fundraising and canvassing arm for the PIRGs.”⁵⁰  “The fund” conducts “door-to-door canvassing campaigns for PIRGs and other allied groups that “not only raise funds but also are used to educate and build support from citizens for PIRG campaigns.”⁵¹

In addition to its work with the PIRG organization, the Fund has been criticized as a mechanism through which “groups such as Environment America, Sierra Club, and the Human Rights Campaign primarily outsource grassroots organizing.”⁵²

U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund

The U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund is U.S. PIRG’s  501(c)(3) research arm. According to the group, it “offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest.”⁵³

State-Based PIRGs

Under the federation of the U.S. PIRG, there are forty-seven state PIRG groups that employ 400 organizers, policy analysts, scientists, and attorneys. The organization has its national office in Denver, Colorado. ⁵⁴

Campus Student PIRGs

Local chapters that operate at public universities. “Ninety staff currently work with more than 1200 student interns and 12,500 volunteers on more than 100 campuses. Since 1997, the PIRGs have added new chapters at nine new campuses, increased funding for the program through student membership dues, and attracted grant support from such foundations as the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Open Society Institute [now Open Society Foundations].”⁵⁵

Environment America

Also see Environment America (Nonprofit)

Environment America is organization that separated from the state PIRGs in 2007 to focus solely on its environmentalist work while the state PIRG groups would focus on other progressive movement issues. Environment America has 29 state affiliates including large-scale organizations in California, Texas, and New York.⁵⁶

Controversies and Criticism

“Sweatshop” Canvassing

The nonprofit Fund for Public Interest Inc. is set up “as the fundraising arm of the network of Public Interest Research Groups,” and it is known for “deploy[ing] legions of door-to-door and street canvassers.”⁵⁷

However, the group has been criticized as the “Walmart of nonprofits” for its “sweatshop” like labor techniques where, “in many cases…the employees collecting those donations made an hourly rate that worked out to less than minimum wage.” In one instance, in the summer of 2005, canvassers tried to unionize their Los Angeles office and the local office abruptly “shut down overnight.”⁵⁸

In a separate case in 2006, the office of the Labor Commissioner of the State of California determined that the Fund had denied rest breaks to a worker, awarding a cash payment. The Fund subsequently changed its policies to provide overtime pay. In 2009, it agreed to settle the class-action suit.⁵⁹

Compromised Progressive Values

In 2016, the U.S. PIRG opposed a new Department of Labor rule that was cheered by labor unions, which would vastly expand the number of workers who must be paid time and a half after 40 hours in a week.⁶⁰ According to U.S. PIRG President, their organization was opposed to the rule because the organization would be “forced to hire fewer staffers.”⁶¹ Observers noted that “U.S. PIRG’s strong opposition to the rule suggests it may have many staffers who earn less than $47,500 a year but regularly work more than 40 hours in a week.”⁶²

Other critics blasted this policy decision as “a slap in the face to the employees of the U.S. PIRG,” and noted that the decision was “hypocritical and shameful” for an organization claiming to fight for the public interest.⁶³

Leadership

Executive Director

Andre Delattre has served as executive director of U.S. PIRG and the U.S. PIRG Education Fund in 2007, and the national campus director for the student PIRGs. ⁶⁴

President and Board of Directors

Douglas H. Phelps is president and chairman of the board for U.S. PIRG. Phelps is also chair of the advisory board of the Fund for the Public Interest.⁶⁵

As of 2014, the following individuals served on the board of directors of U.S. PIRG⁶⁶:

• Diane Brown
• Janet Domenitz
• Brian Imus
• Donna Farvard, Vice Chair
• Douglas H. Phelps, Chairman

1. Editors: Brobeck, Stephen & Mayer, Robert N. “Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism.” Santa Barbara, California. Greenwood. 2015. Accessed July 19, 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=uUUMCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.
2. Balko, Radley. “Opinion: Nader Scams College Kids.” Fox News. March 13, 2003. Accessed July 19, 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/03/13/nader-scams-college-kids.html.
3. Trevor LaFauci. “Before Bernie: How Ralph Nader Created a System to Exploit Young, Idealistic Progressives.” The Peoples View Blog. May 24, 2016. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/24/naders-failure-how-the-public-interest-network-exploits-young-idealistic-progressives.
4. Rosiak, Luke. “The Liberal Sweatshop.” The Daily Beast. July 15, 2009. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-liberal-sweatshop.
5. Jamieson, Dave. “Liberal Advocacy Group Comes Out Against Obama’s Big Overtime Rule.” Huffington Post. May 23, 2016. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-overtime-rule_us_57431db8e4b045cc9a7178cd.
6. Editors: Brobeck, Stephen & Mayer, Robert N. “Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism.” Santa Barbara, California. Greenwood. 2015. Accessed July 19, 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=uUUMCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.
7. Trevor LaFauci. “Before Bernie: How Ralph Nader Created a System to Exploit Young, Idealistic Progressives.” The Peoples View Blog. May 24, 2016. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/24/naders-failure-how-the-public-interest-network-exploits-young-idealistic-progressives.
8. Mark Hemingway. “Barack’s PIRG Past.” National Review. September 16, 2008. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/225685/baracks-pirg-past-mark-hemingway.
9. Trevor LaFauci. “Before Bernie: How Ralph Nader Created a System to Exploit Young, Idealistic Progressives.” The Peoples View Blog. May 24, 2016. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/24/naders-failure-how-the-public-interest-network-exploits-young-idealistic-progressives.
10. Mark Hemingway. “Barack’s PIRG Past.” National Review. September 16, 2008. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/225685/baracks-pirg-past-mark-hemingway.
11. Editors: Brobeck, Stephen & Mayer, Robert N. “Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism.” Santa Barbara, California. Greenwood. 2015. Accessed July 19, 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=uUUMCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.
12. Editors: Brobeck, Stephen & Mayer, Robert N. “Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism.” Santa Barbara, California. Greenwood. 2015. Accessed July 19, 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=uUUMCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.
13. Editors: Brobeck, Stephen & Mayer, Robert N. “Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism.” Santa Barbara, California. Greenwood. 2015. Accessed July 19, 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=uUUMCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.
14. Scott, Janny. “Obama’s Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say.” The New York Times. Oct. 30, 2007. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=print.
15. Mark Hemingway. “Barack’s PIRG Past.” National Review. September 16, 2008. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/225685/baracks-pirg-past-mark-hemingway.
16. Mark Hemingway. “Barack’s PIRG Past.” National Review. September 16, 2008. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/225685/baracks-pirg-past-mark-hemingway.
17. “About U.S. PIRG.” U.S. PIRG. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.uspirg.org/page/usp/about-us-pirg-0.
18. Trevor LaFauci. “Before Bernie: How Ralph Nader Created a System to Exploit Young, Idealistic Progressives.” The Peoples View Blog. May 24, 2016. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/24/naders-failure-how-the-public-interest-network-exploits-young-idealistic-progressives.
19. “U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US-PIRG), Full Filing – Nonprofit Explorer”. Propublica. Accessed August 31, 2022. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/42790740/202141339349304154/full
20. Editors: Brobeck, Stephen & Mayer, Robert N. “Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism.” Santa Barbara, California. Greenwood. 2015. Accessed July 19, 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=uUUMCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.
21. About U.S. PIRG.” U.S. PIRG. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.uspirg.org/page/usp/about-us-pirg-0.
22. “U.S. PIRG Fellowships.” Tufts Political Science Posting. Last Modified Feb. 10, 2016. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://as.tufts.edu/politicalscience/sites/all/themes/asbase/assets/documents/opportunities/careerDevUSpirgFellowship.pdf.
23. Editors: Brobeck, Stephen & Mayer, Robert N. “Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism.” Santa Barbara, California. Greenwood. 2015. Accessed July 19, 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=uUUMCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.
24. “NEWS RELEASE: NUCLEAR POWER, NOT WORTH THE RISK.” U.S. Public Interest Resource Group. March 29, 2011. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://uspirg.org/news/usp/nuclear-power-not-worth-risk
25. “Nuclear explained.” U.S. Energy Information Administration. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/us-nuclear-industry.php>
26. “The Science of Sustainability.” The Nature Conservancy. October 13, 2018. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/the-science-of-sustainability/
27. Editors: Brobeck, Stephen & Mayer, Robert N. “Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism.” Santa Barbara, California. Greenwood. 2015. Accessed July 19, 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=uUUMCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.
28. “Lobbyists representing U.S. PIRG, 2012-2017” OpenSecrets, Center for Responsive Politics. 2012-2017. Accessed July 19, 2017. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/lobby.php?id=D000058093.
29. “Lobbyists representing U.S. PIRG, 2012-2017” OpenSecrets, Center for Responsive Politics. 2012-2017. Accessed July 19, 2017. https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientbills.php?id=D000058093&year=2017.
30. Trevor LaFauci. “Before Bernie: How Ralph Nader Created a System to Exploit Young, Idealistic Progressives.” The Peoples View Blog. May 24, 2016. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/24/naders-failure-how-the-public-interest-network-exploits-young-idealistic-progressives.
31. Kevin Bogardus. “The Top 10 Lobbing Victories of 2010.” The Hill. December 15, 2010. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/133691-the-top-10-lobbying-victories-of-2010.
32. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: U.S. Public Interest Research Group.” Guidestar. 2014. Accessed July 18, 2017.  https://www.guidestar.org/profile/04-2790740.
33. Editors: Brobeck, Stephen & Mayer, Robert N. “Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism.” Santa Barbara, California. Greenwood. 2015. Accessed July 19, 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=uUUMCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.
34. Balko, Radley. “Opinion: Nader Scams College Kids.” Fox News. March 13, 2003. Accessed July 19, 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/03/13/nader-scams-college-kids.html.
35. “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: U.S. Public Interest Research Group.” Guidestar. 2014. Accessed July 18, 2017.  https://www.guidestar.org/profile/04-2790740.
36. “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: U.S. Public Interest Research Group.” Guidestar. 2014. Accessed July 18, 2017. https://www.guidestar.org/profile/04-2790740.
37. “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: U.S. Public Interest Research Group.” Guidestar. 2013. Accessed July 18, 2017. https://www.guidestar.org/profile/04-2790740.
38. “U.S. PIRG.org Home: Our Sister (C)(3).” U.S. PIRG. Undated. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.uspirg.org/home.
39. Editors: Brobeck, Stephen & Mayer, Robert N. “Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism.” Santa Barbara, California. Greenwood. 2015. Accessed July 19, 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=uUUMCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.
40. Mark Hemingway. “Barack’s PIRG Past.” National Review. September 16, 2008. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/225685/baracks-pirg-past-mark-hemingway.
41. Mark Hemingway. “Barack’s PIRG Past.” National Review. September 16, 2008. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/225685/baracks-pirg-past-mark-hemingway.
42. Balko, Radley. “Opinion: Nader Scams College Kids.” Fox News. March 13, 2003. Accessed July 19, 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/03/13/nader-scams-college-kids.html.
43. Mark Hemingway. “Barack’s PIRG Past.” National Review. September 16, 2008. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/225685/baracks-pirg-past-mark-hemingway.
44. Mark Hemingway. “Barack’s PIRG Past.” National Review. September 16, 2008. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/225685/baracks-pirg-past-mark-hemingway.
45. Balko, Radley. “Opinion: Nader Scams College Kids.” Fox News. March 13, 2003. Accessed July 19, 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/03/13/nader-scams-college-kids.html.
46. Balko, Radley. “Opinion: Nader Scams College Kids.” Fox News. March 13, 2003. Accessed July 19, 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/03/13/nader-scams-college-kids.html.
47. Trevor LaFauci. “Before Bernie: How Ralph Nader Created a System to Exploit Young, Idealistic Progressives.” The Peoples View Blog. May 24, 2016. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/24/naders-failure-how-the-public-interest-network-exploits-young-idealistic-progressives.
48. Trevor LaFauci. “Before Bernie: How Ralph Nader Created a System to Exploit Young, Idealistic Progressives.” The Peoples View Blog. May 24, 2016. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/24/naders-failure-how-the-public-interest-network-exploits-young-idealistic-progressives.
49. “We Are the Public Interest Network.” Public Interest Network. Undated. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.publicinterestnetwork.org/.
50. Trevor LaFauci. “Before Bernie: How Ralph Nader Created a System to Exploit Young, Idealistic Progressives.” The Peoples View Blog. May 24, 2016. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/24/naders-failure-how-the-public-interest-network-exploits-young-idealistic-progressives.
51. Editors: Brobeck, Stephen & Mayer, Robert N. “Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism.” Santa Barbara, California. Greenwood. 2015. Accessed July 19, 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=uUUMCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.
52. Trevor LaFauci. “Before Bernie: How Ralph Nader Created a System to Exploit Young, Idealistic Progressives.” The Peoples View Blog. May 24, 2016. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/24/naders-failure-how-the-public-interest-network-exploits-young-idealistic-progressives.
53. “About U.S. PIRG Education Fund.” U.S. PIRG Education Fund. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.uspirgedfund.org/page/usf/about-us-pirg-education-fund.
54. “U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US-PIRG), Full Filing – Nonprofit Explorer”. Propublica. Accessed August 31, 2022. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/42790740/202141339349304154/full
55. “U.S. PIRG Staff: Andre Delattre.” U.S. PIRG. Undated. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.uspirg.org/staff/xxp/andre-delattre.
56. Trevor LaFauci. “Before Bernie: How Ralph Nader Created a System to Exploit Young, Idealistic Progressives.” The Peoples View Blog. May 24, 2016. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/24/naders-failure-how-the-public-interest-network-exploits-young-idealistic-progressives.
57. Rosiak, Luke. “The Liberal Sweatshop.” The Daily Beast. July 15, 2009. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-liberal-sweatshop.
58. Rosiak, Luke. “The Liberal Sweatshop.” The Daily Beast. July 15, 2009. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-liberal-sweatshop.
59. Rosiak, Luke. “The Liberal Sweatshop.” The Daily Beast. July 15, 2009. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-liberal-sweatshop.
60. Delattre, Andre. “U.S. PIRG: Statement on the Overtime Rule.” U.S. PIRG. May 18, 2016. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.uspirg.org/news/usp/statement-overtime-rule.
61. Higgins, Sean. “Liberal nonprofit federation opposes new overtime rule.” The Washington Examiner. May 23, 2016. Accessed July 19, 2017.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/liberal-nonprofit-federation-opposes-new-overtime-rule/article/2592069.

62. Jamieson, Dave. “Liberal Advocacy Group Comes Out Against Obama’s Big Overtime Rule.” Huffington Post. May 23, 2016. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-overtime-rule_us_57431db8e4b045cc9a7178cd.
63. “This “Progressive” Non-profit Wants To Continue Exploiting Its Employees.” Medium Blog. May 23 , 2016. Accessed July 19, 2017. https://medium.com/@publicinterestprimer/this-progressive-non-profit-wants-to-continue-exploiting-its-employees-5b3819902bc4.
64. “U.S. PIRG Staff: Andre Delattre.” U.S. PIRG. Undated. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://www.uspirg.org/staff/xxp/andre-delattre.
65. “U.S. PIRG Staff: Douglas H. Phelps.” U.S. PIRG. Undated. Accessed July 19,2017. http://www.uspirg.org/staff/xxp/douglas-h-phelps.
66. “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: U.S. Public Interest Research Group.” Guidestar. 2014. Accessed July 18, 2017.  https://www.guidestar.org/profile/04-2790740.