The A.S. Council voted to institute voluntary spending limits for A.S. election campaigns on Feb. 26 in response to UC legal counsel.

Effective this year’s election, the new spending system will grant candidates the option to accept specific spending limitations established by the A.S. Council. Their decision will be printed on the ballot both in the form of a list of candidates who accepted the limits and as a statement placed next to the candidate’s name reading, “”accepted voluntary spending limits,”” or, “”declined voluntary spending limits.””

The A.S. Council voted to impose separate volunteer spending limitations for slate and independent candidates. Slate candidates who accept the voluntary limits will be confined to $200 per candidate for executive and commissioner positions, and $75 per candidate for senate positions. Independent candidates who accept the voluntary limits will be confined to $500 per person for executive and commissioner positions, and $175 for senate positions.

Previously, campaign expenditures were limited to $200 for all executive officers and commissioners, and $75 for all senators. However, candidates on slates were allowed to pool their resources and spend funds collectively.

Members of the council argued that the stratification of limitations would “”level the playing field”” between slate and independent candidates.

All candidates who accept campaign spending limitations will be prohibited from accepting funds from sources not affiliated with UCSD, excluding the candidate’s “”immediate family.”” Candidates who accept the limitations will do so by signing a “”voluntary spending limit contract.””

In a memorandum dated Feb. 13, the UC Office of General Counsel advised that in the wake of recent lawsuits filed against the University of California at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz, campaign spending limits will be lifted to avoid restricting a candidate’s First Amendment free speech rights as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case.

According to the memorandum, a U.S. District Court applied Buckley to student elections in Welker v. Cicerone, a 2001 suit contesting campaign finance limits at UC Irvine. As a result, the UC Counsel reports that “”we can say with some confidence that limits on campaign expenditures in student elections will be held unconstitutional.””

University counsel Christopher M. Patti, who authored the memorandum, was unable to comment by press time.

A.S. Council President Jenn Brown, Revelle College Council Chair Alex Schafgans, Thurgood Marshall College Student Council Chair Kevin Kelly and Muir College Sophomore Senator Jeremy Cogan drafted the amendments to A.S. election bylaws to meet the UC Counsel’s mandates.

“”Spending limits allow elections to be accessible to all students regardless of [one’s] financial situation,”” Brown said. “”I don’t like [the UC Office of the President’s] recommendation, but seeing that that’s how their lawyers feel, we’ll do whatever we can to maintain integrity in elections.””

The A.S. Council decision comes after weeks of debate over whether to do away with campaign spending limits. Council members in favor of spending-limit elimination had voiced concerns that leaving spending limits intact would open up future A.S. Councils to the possibility of lawsuits that could render an election contestable.

“”I’m pretty positive that if this went unchecked, a lawsuit would come to UCSD,”” Schafgans said.

Many also worried that A.S. inaction would lead University of California Office of the President itself to change A.S. election bylaws.

“”Many people do not like the idea of setting a precedent by having the administration change our bylaws,”” Kelly said.

In opposition to lifting spending limits, members of the council argued that it was not the responsibility of the A.S. Council to address the issue’s constitutionality.

“”We make decisions in the best interest of students,”” Brown said. “”The Supreme Court makes decisions on [the interpretation of] laws.””

Some, including Brown, also argued that a lawsuit against the university could prove beneficial for Associated Students because the UCSD administration might agree to publicly finance A.S. elections as a result. As evidence, Brown cited a lawsuit filed at UC Santa Cruz against the University of California that resulted in administration instituting public finance of A.S. elections.

“”Getting sued turned out to be positive for UCSC,”” Brown said.

The constitutionality of campaign spending limits at UCSD was first challenged in the 1998 A.S. election when independent presidential candidate Joe Leventhal, citing Buckley, complained to Elections Manager Jaime Drozd that spending limits unlawfully restricted the political expression of candidates, citizens and associations.

Leventhal argued that such bylaws hamper an independent candidate’s bid for election.

However, A.S. attorney John Francis and Director of Student Policy and Judicial Affairs Nick Aguilar decided to uphold spending limits on the grounds that Associated Students is an internal organization of UCSD and is thus not subject to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment.

Despite the decision, Leventhal was able to raise his funds through donations from the student-formed Committee to Elect Joe Leventhal, and went on to win the presidential election.

In its meeting on Feb. 26, the A.S. Council split the proposed amendments into two separate items. The first, which included the stratified spending limits, was approved 12-7-1, while the second, which held that a candidate’s decision be printed on the ballot, was approved 14-4-0.