Talk:Fund for the Public Interest

Edit request
I’m an editor with a conflict of interest and I’d like to help improve this page. I’ve disclosed my COI on my user page also.

I have several suggested revisions that I think would provide a more focused lead section. I will post each proposed revision under a separate edit request to keep them a manageable size for review. If it would be better for me to post more with each request, please let me know.

1) In the first sentence of the lead section, please remove the parenthetical information
 * "(formerly known as the Fund for Public Interest Research and generally referred to as the FFPIR or "the Fund")."

2) Please add the following sentences as the second and third sentences of the "History" section:
 * "It was established as the Fund for Public Interest Research (and generally referred to as the FFPIR or "the Fund"). It changed its name to the Fund for the Public Interest in 2008."

3) The reference for the second new sentence, with the date of the name change, is: "Business Entity Summary: Summary for: Fund for the Public Interest, Inc." Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, Corporations Division. Retrieved October 31, 2019. (I've provided the footnote because it contains formatted information for the citation, which I hope will be easier for whoever might post this.)

4) Reason: This level of detail seems better suited to the body of the article than to the lead section. I provided the year of the name change because it seems like a useful addition to the organizational history.

Please let me know if you need more information or if there is a clearer or easier way for me to present this. Thank you. CleanWater17 (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply 31-OCT-2019
Regards, Spintendo  23:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OTHERNAMES.

Edit request Nov 1, 2019
I’m an editor with a conflict of interest and I’d like to help improve this page. I’ve disclosed my COI on my user page also.

In the lead section, I have several suggested revisions. I will post each proposed revision sequentially under a separate edit request.


 * In the third sentence, please remove "FFPIR".


 * Please replace it with "The organization".


 * The reason for this is twofold. "FFPIR" is an old abbreviation for the organization. In addition, the abbreviation is not explained until the "Name" section of the article so it seems slightly confusing at this point in the lead section.

Thank you for your help.

CleanWater17 (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Done I've removed the letter R from the acronym used in the lead section. Regards, Spintendo  07:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request Nov 26, 2019
I’m an editor with a conflict of interest and I’d like to help improve this page. I’ve disclosed my COI on my user page also.

In the lead section, I have several suggested revisions. I will post each proposed revision sequentially under a separate edit request.


 * In the first sentence, please remove "politically liberal".


 * At the end of that sentence, please insert "that focus on public interest, environmental, and human rights issues". The footnote does not need updating.


 * The reason for this is that we'd rather not be tagged as "politically liberal." I prefer to provide more specifics of what issues we work on (public interest, environmental, human rights) and allow readers to come to their own conclusions.

Thank you for your help.

CleanWater17 (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply 26-NOV-2019
Regards, Spintendo  22:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Disclaimer: I used to work for the Fund back in 2017 as my first paid job, but I don't have any affiliation with them now. The specific campaign was for Environment Connecticut which is, oddly enough, run by the husband of my school's disability support services coordinator. – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * we'd rather not be tagged as "politically liberal." It's not the Fund for the Public Interest (FFPI) which is being labeled as liberal in the lead sentence, rather, it's the non-profit organizations for which FFPI runs their public fundraising and canvassing that is being labeled in this manner (FFPI is a non-profit organization that runs the public fundraising and canvassing operations for politically liberal nonprofit organizations in the United States.. That claim regarding those operations as being liberal is verified by the Rosiak source.
 * Would left-wing nonprofit organizations work? We definitely shouldn't say they support public interest organizations though, because.. well like... that's already kind of obvious by the name. "Human rights" work is also kind of a upsell there since the PIRGs aren't exactly Amnesty International. In my experience, most campaigns are either related to consumer protection or environmentalism, so I'm not completely against just saying environment and consumer protection nonprofit organizations instead so long as Spintendo is okay with that.
 * the "human rights" reference covers the fact that the Fund canvasses for the Human Rights campaign. I'm ok with Spintendo's rejection of my proposed edit, because I suppose my request was splitting hairs a bit. Thanks to both of you for your help. CleanWater17 (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit request Dec. 18, 2019
I’m an editor with a conflict of interest and I’d like to help improve this page. I’ve disclosed my COI on my user page also.

In this edit request, I'd like to address the conflation of the Fund with the Public Interest Research Groups in the History section. I have two proposed changes.

First change:
 * In the first sentence of the third paragraph of the History section, please remove "and its state-level Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) have".


 * In its place, please insert "has" so that it reads "The Fund has faced".


 * The reason for this is that this page is about the Fund, not the Public Interest Research Groups, and the labor issues described here belong to the Fund, not the Public Interest Research Groups.

Second change:
 * Please remove the entire fourth sentence of the third paragraph of the History section.


 * The reason is that the Fund did not publicly oppose the proposed wage rules; only the Public Interest Research Groups did. The source does not mention the Fund at all. If this page is about the Fund, rather than both the Fund and the Public Interest Research Groups, then this information does not belong here. (If you do decide to leave this, note that this happened in 2016, not 2006.)

Thank you for your help.

CleanWater17 (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I made a few other changes as well. I noticed a few other things that should probably be changed, too. However, it's late, and I'm kinda tired. Cheers, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit request Dec. 20, 2019
I’m an editor with a conflict of interest. I’ve disclosed my COI on my user page also.

In this edit request, I'd like to create a new "Operations" section. I ultimately would like it to include some information that is currently included in the "History" section plus additional information about the Fund's operations that I will propose in later edit requests.


 * After the "Name" section and before the "History" section, please insert a new section titled "Operations."
 * To begin to fill out this new section, please move the second paragraph of the "History" section and place it as the opening paragraph under "Operations."
 * The reason for this is twofold. 1) There's nowhere on the page to explain more about what the Fund currently does. 2) Some of what exists in the "History" section isn't really history; it is more about current operations.

Thank you for your help. CleanWater17 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since there has been no objection, I have now done this. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit request Dec. 22, 2019
I’m an editor with a conflict of interest. I’ve disclosed my COI on my user page also.

I'd like to begin adding more information to the new "Operations" section.


 * As the second paragraph of the "Operations" section, please insert:
 * The Fund operates street canvasses and door canvasses. Street canvasses send staff to stand in pedestrian traffic areas and solicit passersby to support a campaign. Door canvasses may send canvassers to neighborhoods throughout the metropolitan area where the office is located, or engage in “camping canvasses” in which canvassers drive to areas much farther from the office, camp for several nights and canvass during the day.
 * Note that the citations here are intended to link to an existing source in the article (Fisher, Dana, Activism, Inc.: How the Outsourcing of Grassroots Campaigns Is Strangling Progressive Politics in America (Stanford Univ. Press, 2006), with page numbers. As this source is not available online, I don't know how to share it so that other editors can confirm the cited information. I'm willing to scan pages and share via email if necessary., perhaps you can advise me how best to do this, because I have other additions I'd like to propose from this source.
 * The reason for this is that I'd like the article to better explain how the Fund operates and the context in which people may encounter canvassers who work for the Fund.

Thanks in advance for the explanations and the help. CleanWater17 (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, I'm not exactly sure how to handle this edit request since I don't have experience with how offline sources works with WP:COI editing. Could you review this and advise? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The ping failed for whatever reason.


 * Could you provide advice here? Neither MJL nor I know how to handle the fact that I want to use an offline source. The source is already cited in the existing page, but I want to add more information from it and MJL doesn't have a copy to confirm the information. CleanWater17 (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit request March 1, 2021
Hello volunteers! My name is Elizabeth, and I am a COI editor with respect to this article. I would like to ask for help in updating the article and getting it into “good article” status. I initially posted this March 1, 2021 and, having not received a response, updated one fact in January 31, 2022.

The reason for my request to update the introductory paragraph is to have it conform more closely to the form for a good article lead. I am suggesting that 1) the Ralph Nader reference be deleted, since he had nothing to do with creation of the Fund; and 2) that the general and decade-old reference to the Fund as “the largest fundraiser for progressive causes in the United States” be replaced by specific financial information for which I have a citation.

Thank you in advance for any assistance and/or feedback you can provide. CleanWater17 (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Current introduction

The Fund for the Public Interest is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization that runs the public fundraising and canvassing operations for politically liberal nonprofit organizations in the United States. The Fund is the largest fundraiser for progressive causes in the United States. FFPI was set up in 1982 as the fundraising arm of the Public Interest Research Group (PIRGs), which was founded by Ralph Nader. The Fund has been named as a defendant in several lawsuits alleging unfair labor practices, including failing to pay its workers minimum wage.

Replacement requested

The Fund for the Public Interest is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization that runs the public fundraising and canvassing operations for politically liberal nonprofit organizations that advocate for issues such as environmental protection, consumer safeguards and public health in the United States. FFPI was set up in 1982 as the fundraising arm of the Public Interest Research Group (PIRGs). In 2020, the Fund reported revenue of $20 million and expenses of $21.3 million. The Fund has been named as a defendant in several lawsuits alleging unfair labor practices, including failing to pay its workers minimum wage.

Made edits proposed March 1, 2021
Hello volunteers! After not hearing any response to the edits I proposed a year ago, I've gone ahead and implemented those changes to the introductory paragraph. I've read the guidelines for editing and I believe it is acceptable for editors of non-profit pages to make non-controversial changes. In addition, I believe the edits improve the article by adding current information with additional citations. My edit request from March 1, 2021, above, provides more detail about what changes I made and why. CleanWater17 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Re-raising proposed edit from Dec. 22, 2019
Hi fellow editors- I'm an editor with a conflict of interest, I’ve disclosed my COI on my user page also, and I pay attention to COI editing guidelines. I am planning to implement the edits I proposed on December 22, 2019 and have not heard back on. I believe the changes are non-controversial and will improve the article. I have solid sourcing. Unless I receive feedback in the next few days, I will implement this edit early next week. CleanWater17 (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Updating and improving Operations section
I'm an editor with a conflict of interest. I’ve disclosed my COI on my user page, and I pay attention to COI editing guidelines. I would greatly appreciate help with making changes to this article. The edits I am requesting today are intended to help readers better understand how the Fund operates. I believe the changes are non-controversial and will improve the article. I will await feedback for 7 days and then I plan to implement the changes.

This request is in two parts, which are related.

1) My first request is to remove the "Organizational structure" section entirely. It is only two sentences; I believe after reviewing similar articles that the information now in this section belongs elsewhere, and that this section unnecessarily complicates the article.

2) My second request is to update the information currently in the Organizational structure section with more accurate information and move it to "Operations," where I believe it belongs. I'd like to add two short paragraphs below the existing material in the "Operations" section:

In 2019-2020, the last year before the pandemic, the Fund employed 5,263 people nationwide to knock on doors and make calls, raising $20 million.

Canvassers are paid and often are college students working a summer job. The average employment of a canvasser lasts about two weeks, according to a 2003-2004 study. The same study noted that, of the canvassers who participated in the study in 2003 and were interviewed again in 2004, the average employment was roughly three months.

CleanWater17 (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Revising lead paragraph
Hi Mastimido and other volunteer editors-

I’m an editor with a conflict of interest, which I’ve also disclosed on my user page. To make this a better article and to follow the guidelines to achieve good article status, I’d like to make two changes to the lead paragraph.

1. Now that the Fund’s revenue and expenses information is included in the infobox, I would like to remove that information from the lead by deleting “In 2020, the Fund reported revenue of $20 million and expenses of $21.3 million” and its footnote.

2. I’d like to remove or modify the last sentence of the lead which refers to labor lawsuits. I am not seeking to purge unfavorable information from the article. There is detailed information in the article that I’m not going to ask to remove, though I do have some proposed edits that I will raise later. However, this sentence in the lead, as currently written, doesn’t accurately inform readers about the Fund today. Is it ok to delete this sentence? If it needs to remain, I propose modifying it to say “In the 2000s, the Fund was named as a defendant in several lawsuits alleging unfair labor practices.”

I appreciate any help or advice you can offer.

CleanWater17 (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I implemented the first request. And I'm editing the last line in the summary paragraph to be more general since the later section references both lawsuits and union issues. I do question the "liberal sweatshop" term later: as far as I can find, that was the headline of one reporter's story -- the reporter himself did not use that term -- and then has been repeated with quotes in other stories. Thoughts on that? Mastimido (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Mastimido, for your help. "Liberal sweatshop" makes for a good headline, but it feels like an excessively derogatory phrase more than an illuminating statement. I hadn't previously noticed that it came just from the headline, not even from a quote in the Daily Beast article. CleanWater17 (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Add "Notable campaigns" to History section
Hi Mastimido and other volunteer editors-

I’m an editor with a conflict of interest (also disclosed on my user page). I'd like to improve this article by including some additional information, and would appreciate help from another editor. I would like to add a "Notable campaigns" section to the History section to help explain some of the Fund's impact on the organizations it works with and their campaigns.

Here is what I propose adding:

The Fund has raised funds and increased membership for the groups for which it canvasses. In the mid-2000s, for example, Greenpeace’s director said the Fund helped expand his organization’s membership base and provided significant income. As of 2005, an official with the Human Rights Campaign estimated that half of the organization’s members had been recruited by the Fund. The Fund’s staff have helped groups it works for win adoption of a renewable electricity standard in California and protection for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I look forward to any feedback or help you can offer.

(Also, the first three references listed below are from some previous entry on the talk page. I don't know why they are appearing here.)

CleanWater17 (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)