Closing Repair Preservation Group Action Fund; here's what we did for the last five years

The speaker announced the winding down of the Repair Preservation Group Action Fund, a nonprofit started in 2021 to advance right-to-repair legislation. The decision stems from a belief that there is no clear path forward to achieve meaningful legislative change, despite significant efforts and funds raised. All financial records, including bank statements and detailed transaction reports, are being made public to ensure transparency regarding how money was spent. Right to repair advocates for consumers' ability to fix their purchased items without manufacturers creating artificial barriers, such as restricting access to essential components like charging chips for motherboards. Manufacturers often create repair monopolies by preventing the sale of individual components, forcing consumers to pay exorbitant prices for repairs or replace entire devices. The speaker noted that while some repairs are still performed, they often involve inefficient methods like salvaging parts from other devices. The speaker has been involved in the right-to-repair movement since 2014, expressing frustration that legislative efforts often failed due to lobbying by opposing interests. The nonprofit was established to provide financial backing to counter this. The decision to close the fund is not a lack of belief in the cause, but a recognition that current legislative approaches are not yielding the desired outcomes, such as repair shops having access to schematics, diagrams, and chips—resources that were sought five to ten years ago and are still largely unavailable. Many bills passed contain loopholes, often citing "safety" or "security" concerns, allowing manufacturers to sell expensive full assemblies instead of individual, inexpensive parts. The speaker also considered the possibility that by continuing to raise funds without a clear strategy, they might be "sucking the oxygen out of the room" for others who might have more effective approaches to passing right-to-repair legislation. Financially, the nonprofit raised $934,765.76 over five years and spent approximately $900,633.15, with the majority allocated to lobbying efforts. Funds came from GoFundMe, checks, large wire transfers (including one for $100,000 and $20,000 from Linus), Stripe donations, and Zelle. Expenditures included accountant and lawyer fees for compliance and setup, bank fees, and advertising/marketing. The main focus of spending was lobbying in various states and at the federal level. State-level lobbying efforts: * **Colorado:** Approximately $166,000 was spent, largely with the US Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG). This led to successes, including the signing of right-to-repair legislation for agricultural equipment, digital electronic equipment, and powered wheelchairs in 2023. The powered wheelchair bill, which had previously failed, passed after the nonprofit provided support. However, manufacturers, with the help of lobbyists, are attempting to undo this bill. * **Delaware:** A right-to-repair bill (House Bill 22) essentially went nowhere, with minimal expenditure. * **Georgia:** A lobbyist was hired, but a general right-to-repair bill (Senate Bill 243) failed to pass out of the Senate by the deadline. * **Illinois:** Funds were spent on a lobbyist for House Bill 3061, a digital fair repair act, but no bill advanced to a vote. * **Maryland:** A lobbying firm, Funk and Bolton, was hired, but no legislation was passed. The speaker expressed regret over not making public a phone call where a representative of the Farm Bureau claimed farmers didn't care about fixing their own equipment, believing this silence, advised by the lobbyist, hindered progress. * **Minnesota:** Success was achieved with a bill (SF2744) being passed as part of an omnibus bill, thanks to a creative strategy by the hired lobbyist. This digital fair repair act went into effect in July 2024, though it notably excludes game consoles. * **Missouri:** Approximately $62,500 was spent on lobbying for bills related to farm equipment and consumer electronics, but the sponsor lost interest, and no legislative results were achieved. * **Washington:** Efforts involved both US PIRG and directly hired lobbyists. After several attempts over five years, House Bill 1483, the Right to Repair Act, was signed into law in 2025. This bill provides consumers and independent repair providers with fair access to parts, tools, and information for digital devices and prohibits "parts pairing," a manufacturer practice that restricts repair. Federal-level lobbying: Over $390,000 was spent on general lobbying not dedicated to individual states. This included Emmer Consulting, aimed at revising Section 1201 of the DMCA. Section 1201 makes it illegal to bypass digital locks, even for repair, and can lead to prison sentences for those who show others how to do so. The nonprofit aimed to decriminalize breaking digital locks for self-repair. These efforts did not lead to changes in the law. US PIRG received substantial funding due to their nationwide organizational efforts and the expertise of Nathan Proctor, who has been a consistent advocate in right-to-repair hearings and strategy. The speaker credited Proctor with knowing the intricacies of the legislative process, complementing the speaker's ability to generate public engagement. Lessons learned from this experience include: 1. **Ease of passing laws vs. usefulness:** It's easier to pass a law than to pass one that is genuinely effective and free of loopholes. Manufacturers often find ways around legislation by complying technically but not in spirit (e.g., authorized technicians having no access to schematics, forcing full assembly replacements). 2. **Cultural change over legislative change:** The speaker believes true change will come from a cultural shift, where future engineers and company leaders, influenced by the right-to-repair movement, refuse to implement restrictive policies. 3. **Ego and "sucking the oxygen out of the room":** The speaker, being a prominent figure, recognized the risk of attracting funds that might otherwise go to others who could be more effective. 4. **The mistake of a $0 salary:** The speaker initially took no salary to avoid criticism of being a "grifter." However, this decision was largely influenced by catering to detractors, which ultimately led to not treating the nonprofit with the full-time dedication it required, as other income-generating ventures took priority. The speaker realized that critics would accuse them of profiting regardless of a salary, and that paying themselves would have fostered a greater sense of accountability. 5. **Legislators' motivations:** Decisions are not always based on corruption but often on limited "brain space" for issues. Right to repair, despite its popularity, often falls low on a legislator's priority list compared to other pressing national and state concerns. For right to repair to become a top priority, the situation for consumers might need to worsen significantly. The speaker expressed hope that others will continue the fight and achieve greater success. The initial goal, symbolized by "schematics or die" on a mousepad from 2015, was to ensure access to fundamental repair information. The speaker acknowledged that this objective has not been met, and therefore, cannot claim success.