progressive political advocacy organization

Fair Share Action

A progressive political advocacy organization that supports issue campaigns and contributes to electoral efforts for candidates and allied political groups. It scores very low because the organization directly channels donor and activist resources into partisan electoral power while framing that work as broad fairness and public voice.

Why this matters: Fair Share Action is the clearest electoral edge of this ecosystem, so the policy-capture and ideological-disavowal penalties are heavier.

Letter grade D Extractive Medium confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 12, 2026

Final Score 0* D - Extractive

DEXTRACTIVE0 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material18

Bonus+0

Cap35Ownership <= 2 and Governance <= 2

After Cap18

Penalties-18

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

D - Extractive

The score turns mainly on Scale Integrity, with the largest penalty coming from Policy Capture.

Strengths

Scale Integrity3/5
Ownership2/10
Governance2/10

Penalties

Policy Capture-5
Youth Capture-3
Identity Capture-3
Ideological Disavowal-3

Evidence state

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims16
Direct axis claims16
Coverage16/16

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	2 / 10	Fair Share Action's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. Fair Share Action's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. On Ownership, Fair Share Action belongs low because the practical power relation is recruitment, canvassing, electoral work, or professional advocacy controlled by the organization rather than by the people whose labor, money, or public voice it uses. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Fair Share Action's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Fair Share Action's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Fair Share Action's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Fair Share Action's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Fair Share Action's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Fair Share Action's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Fair Share Action's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Fair Share Action's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Fair Share Action's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	2 / 10	Fair Share Action's linked public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. Fair Share Action's linked public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. On Governance, Fair Share Action belongs low because the practical power relation is recruitment, canvassing, electoral work, or professional advocacy controlled by the organization rather than by the people whose labor, money, or public voice it uses. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Fair Share Action's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] Fair Share Action's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Fair Share Action's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Fair Share Action's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Fair Share Action's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Fair Share Action's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Fair Share Action's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Fair Share Action's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Fair Share Action's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	2 / 10	Fair Share Action's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. Fair Share Action's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. On Extraction, Fair Share Action belongs low because the practical power relation is recruitment, canvassing, electoral work, or professional advocacy controlled by the organization rather than by the people whose labor, money, or public voice it uses. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Fair Share Action's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Fair Share Action's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] Fair Share Action's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Fair Share Action's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Fair Share Action's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Fair Share Action's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Fair Share Action's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Fair Share Action's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Fair Share Action's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	1 / 7	Fair Share Action's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. Fair Share Action's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. On Labor Sovereignty, Fair Share Action belongs low because the practical power relation is recruitment, canvassing, electoral work, or professional advocacy controlled by the organization rather than by the people whose labor, money, or public voice it uses. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Fair Share Action's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Fair Share Action's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Fair Share Action's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] Fair Share Action's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Fair Share Action's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Fair Share Action's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Fair Share Action's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Fair Share Action's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Fair Share Action's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	2 / 7	Fair Share Action's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. Fair Share Action's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. On Solidarity with the Unemployed, Fair Share Action belongs low because the practical power relation is recruitment, canvassing, electoral work, or professional advocacy controlled by the organization rather than by the people whose labor, money, or public voice it uses. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Fair Share Action's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Fair Share Action's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Fair Share Action's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Fair Share Action's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] Fair Share Action's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Fair Share Action's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Fair Share Action's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Fair Share Action's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Fair Share Action's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	2 / 7	Fair Share Action's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. Fair Share Action's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. On Loss-Bearing Fidelity, Fair Share Action belongs low because the practical power relation is recruitment, canvassing, electoral work, or professional advocacy controlled by the organization rather than by the people whose labor, money, or public voice it uses. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Fair Share Action's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Fair Share Action's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Fair Share Action's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Fair Share Action's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Fair Share Action's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] Fair Share Action's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Fair Share Action's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Fair Share Action's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Fair Share Action's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	2 / 5	Fair Share Action's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. Fair Share Action's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. On Market Conduct, Fair Share Action belongs low because the practical power relation is recruitment, canvassing, electoral work, or professional advocacy controlled by the organization rather than by the people whose labor, money, or public voice it uses. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Fair Share Action's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Fair Share Action's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Fair Share Action's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Fair Share Action's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Fair Share Action's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Fair Share Action's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] Fair Share Action's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Fair Share Action's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Fair Share Action's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	2 / 5	Fair Share Action's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. Fair Share Action's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. On Product Integrity, Fair Share Action belongs low because the practical power relation is recruitment, canvassing, electoral work, or professional advocacy controlled by the organization rather than by the people whose labor, money, or public voice it uses. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Fair Share Action's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Fair Share Action's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Fair Share Action's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Fair Share Action's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Fair Share Action's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Fair Share Action's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Fair Share Action's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] Fair Share Action's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] context Fair Share Action's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	3 / 5	Fair Share Action's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. Fair Share Action's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. On Scale Integrity, Fair Share Action sits in the middle: the mission can be genuinely useful, but control still runs through professional nonprofit, network, or campaign leadership. That places it above pure fundraising machinery and below organizations where workers, members, or affected communities govern the institution. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence context Fair Share Action's public record identifies it as a nonprofit, advocacy network, recruiting organization, student group, research center, or electoral advocacy organization rather than a worker-owned or user-owned cooperative. [1] context Fair Share Action's public materials do not show binding democratic control by ordinary workers, donors, canvassers, students, constituents, or affected communities. [2] context Fair Share Action's operating model converts donations, dues, student fees, volunteer labor, campaign work, public attention, or research into advocacy capacity. [3] context Fair Share Action's worker-power record is evaluated against public descriptions of staff roles, recruiting pipelines, canvassing work, union activity, or NLRB/labor records where available. [4] context Fair Share Action's mission or services address public goods such as consumer protection, environmental health, democracy, education affordability, or pollution cleanup rather than ordinary private consumption. [5] context Fair Share Action's advocacy, research, organizing, or community-support work can shift some problem-solving costs away from isolated individuals and toward organized public action. [6] context Fair Share Action's conduct is evaluated as advocacy-market conduct: recruitment, canvassing, donor acquisition, student-fee funding, policy pressure, research publication, and public campaign framing. [7] context Fair Share Action's core output is advocacy, research, organizing, recruiting, electoral support, or community training rather than a physical consumer product. [8] Fair Share Action's scale and network position determine whether its campaigns create broad public benefit, concentrated institutional control, or both. [9]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Human Harm ? Severity, scale, culpability, vulnerable targets, willful reoffense, reputation laundering, pattern escalation, and time decay. Range: -20 to 0.	-1	Fair Share Action's labor record includes public allegations or concerns around discharge, retaliation, or high-pressure advocacy work that can harm economically vulnerable staff. Fair Share Action's labor record includes public allegations or concerns around discharge, retaliation, or high-pressure advocacy work that can harm economically vulnerable staff. This creates a Human Harm penalty because labor-rights allegations in a mission-driven workplace are especially serious: the organization asks workers to accept hardship for public values while still controlling their livelihood. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Fair Share Action's labor record includes public allegations or concerns around discharge, retaliation, or high-pressure advocacy work that can harm economically vulnerable staff. [10]
Policy Capture ? Private-interest attempts to bend law, regulation, subsidies, taxes, enforcement, trade, labor, safety, competition, environmental, healthcare, housing, surveillance, civil-liberties, or consumer policy against workers, customers, citizens, affected communities, or ecological life. Public-interest advocacy is not penalized merely because it is lobbying. Range: -15 to 0.	-5	Fair Share Action's own materials describe policy advocacy, lobbying, candidate support, public-pressure campaigns, or citizen mobilization aimed at changing public rules. Fair Share Action's own materials describe policy advocacy, lobbying, candidate support, public-pressure campaigns, or citizen mobilization aimed at changing public rules. This creates a Policy Capture penalty because even public-interest lobbying is an attempt by a private institution to bend public rules. The penalty is heaviest for electoral and campaign machinery, lighter where the work mainly checks stronger private power. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Fair Share Action's own materials describe policy advocacy, lobbying, candidate support, public-pressure campaigns, or citizen mobilization aimed at changing public rules. [11]
Youth Capture ? Manipulative youth-directed marketing, youth-data or attention monetization, collectible/add-on traps, parasocial or identity capture, surprise mechanics, or treating young people as lower-disclosure consumers. Making useful toys or welcoming children is not itself penalized. Range: -5 to 0.	-3	Fair Share Action's model recruits, trains, bills, or mobilizes students and young organizers, making youth-culture and early-career capture a direct axis-specific concern. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Fair Share Action's model recruits, trains, bills, or mobilizes students and young organizers, making youth-culture and early-career capture a direct axis-specific concern. [12]
Subscription Capture ? Manipulative recurring-payment, automatic-renewal, cancellation-friction, bundling, trial-conversion, or refund designs that profit from inertia or confusion. Range: -5 to 0.	-1	Fair Share Action's model includes recurring donations, student-fee pledges, membership fundraising, or contact acquisition that can outlast the initial moment of consent. Fair Share Action's model includes recurring donations, student-fee pledges, membership fundraising, or contact acquisition that can outlast the initial moment of consent. This creates a Subscription Capture penalty because recurring donations, waivable fees, and pledge systems can persist beyond fresh deliberation. The value is calibrated below abusive commercial subscription traps but above ordinary one-time donation requests. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Fair Share Action's model includes recurring donations, student-fee pledges, membership fundraising, or contact acquisition that can outlast the initial moment of consent. [13]
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	Fair Share Action's public materials do not give a complete plain-language map of governance control, related entities, fund flows, staff power, and constituent consent. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Fair Share Action's public materials do not give a complete plain-language map of governance control, related entities, fund flows, staff power, and constituent consent. [14]
Identity Capture ? Customer pressure, employee pressure, and pervasive identity saturation. Range: -3 to 0.	-3	Fair Share Action's mission framing can bind staff, students, donors, and volunteers to a moralized activist identity as well as to specific practical public goals. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Fair Share Action's mission framing can bind staff, students, donors, and volunteers to a moralized activist identity as well as to specific practical public goals. [15]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-3	Fair Share Action's public language often presents a contested political program as public interest, fairness, science, democracy, or nonpartisan necessity rather than as an explicit ideological standpoint. Fair Share Action's public language often presents a contested political program as public interest, fairness, science, democracy, or nonpartisan necessity rather than as an explicit ideological standpoint. This creates a Ideological Disavowal penalty because the problem is not having progressive politics; the problem is presenting contested ideology as neutral public interest or simple decency while exercising institutional power. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Public Interest Network and adjacent liberal activist infrastructure calibrated across network parent, canvassing arm, policy advocacy, research, student, recruiting, community-support, and electoral organizations. Linked evidence Fair Share Action's public language often presents a contested political program as public interest, fairness, science, democracy, or nonpartisan necessity rather than as an explicit ideological standpoint. [16]

Bonus Credits

No bonus credits applied in this version.

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

Medium 79/100

16 verified linked claims 16 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 16/16 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 16/20

16 verified linked claims

Source quality 10/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

16 direct claims across 16 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 10/10

16/16 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Alternatives

Competitors

AGOOD58 GiveWell charity evaluator · same market AGOOD55 CharityWatch charity watchdog · same market AGOOD55 FairTest nonprofit standardized-testing watchdog · same market AGOOD55 Protect Borrowers / Student Borrower Protection Center nonprofit student-loan borrower advocacy organization · same market AGOOD52 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau federal consumer-finance watchdog agency · same market AGOOD51 National Association of Community Health Centers nonprofit community-health-center advocacy organization · same market BQUALIFIED48 BBB Wise Giving Alliance charity watchdog · same market BQUALIFIED44 Candid / GuideStar nonprofit transparency platform · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Fair Share Action Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

No company-specific audit entries have been published yet.

View Full Audit Log