Mandatory campaign funding limit would be more judicious
By Seth Ronquillo
May 2, 2011 11:55 p.m.
Of the 24 candidates for this year’s Undergraduate Students Association Council election, only three volunteered to limit campaign spending. And of the three presidential hopefuls, only the independent is capping expenses.
The voluntary spending limit is intended to help the campaign process become more equitable for everyone, said Patrick Ahrens, Elections Board chairman.
But independents face a major disadvantage, because slate-affiliated candidates who already have access to their group’s resources often do not consent to the voluntary cap. To improve the election process, the cap should be made mandatory. Doing so would not only level the playing field but would also force slates to use money more wisely. The thousands and thousands of dollars spent for campaigns would serve a better purpose on student programs.
The Elections Board lists three expense caps in their Voluntary Spending Limit Contract: $600 for the office of president, $400 for all other offices and $150 for campaign signboards. Although the contract could create some sense of equity for candidates financially, its purpose becomes void if slate members decline it year after year.
In this year’s race, Bruins United collectively spent $10,415.70, while Students First! used $9,571.05.
“Of course, there’s some disadvantage in not running with a slate,” said independent presidential candidate Daniel Yadegari, who consented to the spending cap. “When you have more money to spend, you are more likely to win.”
According to Bruins United co-chair Jason Youdeem, Bruins United candidates work with family, friends and the community to raise funds for their campaign. A small portion of their campaign funding also comes from Bruins United alumni who choose to donate.
Similarly, Students First! presidential candidate Matt Spring said that an alumni fund is one of the main sources for his campaign funding.
Such resources are unavailable to independents, giving an advantage to Bruins United and Students First! candidates. For example, Yadegari said the majority of his campaign funding comes from an “outside source.”
The voluntary nature of the spending cap simply adds to the handicaps faced by unaffiliated candidates who already receive less exposure to student organizations because they are not part of a slate.
Adam Swart, a former independent presidential candidate putting the cap on his expenses, said that professors, family members and friends offered to fund the campaign. Though Swart withdrew from the race, he said his campaign funds are still intended for two $150 textbook scholarships.
Likewise, instead of spending thousands of dollars specifically for their brief campaigns, Bruins United and Students First! should also consider putting money into lasting programs that would directly serve the student body.
After the campaign season is over and the new council members take their positions, they should seriously consider implementing a mandatory spending cap.
Michael Cohn, the associate director for the Center of Student Programming, said that, historically, there were caps in campaign spending. In the past, advertising through the Daily Bruin has been a common campaign method for election candidates. Consequently, running for an office became expensive, resulting in compulsory expense limits to make the election process fair.
In 2003, however, the undergraduate student government implemented voluntary spending caps after a U.S. District Court ruled that universities cannot police the spending rules for student elections.
But more recently, in a 2007 case, Flint v. Dennison, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that educational interests outweigh the free speech of students who campaign. Afterward, Stanford University’s Undergraduate Senate used this rationale to pass a campaign spending cap.
If a candidate is really the best choice for office, money should not be an issue. The candidate should be able to win an election without having to buy the approval of the electorate.
A mandatory spending limit would make elections fairer and encourage slates to use funds more judiciously.
Should USAC campaign spending be capped? Email Ronquillo at [email protected].
Send general comments to [email protected].
