When UCSD’s student government spends three hours discussing the legal ramifications of a 1976 Supreme Court case on campaign finance reform, it’s more than a little odd.
Fraught with good intentions, the A.S. Council amended its elections bylaws during the Feb. 26 meeting. In the wake of a directive handed down by the UC president, the A.S. Council abolished mandatory campaign spending restrictions, then instituted a voluntary system of expenditure limits.
Next, the council went a step further in “”leveling the playing field”” and forbade candidates to accept campaign contributions from persons not affiliated with UCSD, with the exception of the candidate’s “”immediate family.””
These new provisions are ridiculously unenforceable.
Even the under the previous system, by which candidates were forced to restrict their spending, student politicians found ways to evade the bylaws. In 1998, an independent A.S. presidential candidate named Joe Leventhal challenged the bylaws’ constitutionality and failed. Rather than give up hope and limit himself to the measly $200 allowed him by the draconian bylaws, Leventhal’s friends created the “”Committee to Elect Joe Leventhal”” to spend money on his behalf.
Every candidate this year will opt into the voluntary restrictions system. To not do so would be to look like a spoiled rich kid trying to buy the election. However, every major slate — be it Students First! or Unity or any others that should crop up — will undoubtedly have some organization spending money on its behalf. The slates can spend as much as they want by funneling money through a friendly front group like the pingpong club. In real world politics, these unregulated organizations are called political action committees or special interest groups. They’re not running for office, so they’re not restricted by elections rules.
The ban on outside contributions is laughable because of the impossibility of the elections manager tracking down the origin of every dollar spent by every candidate. If a candidate spends a million dollars on his campaign, there’s no way to tell whether the cash came from his summer job at Starbucks or from a huge under-the-table donation by Qualcomm. Contrary to the beliefs of some A.S. Council members, there are no “”disclosure rules”” requiring candidates to reveal the sources of their income. No one will ever be brought before the elections committee on charges of accepting contributions from outside parties.
Besides the unenforceable campaign finance regulations, the A.S. elections bylaws are packed with other loopholes. The most significant is the definition of an official “”campaign period.””
The elections bylaws say that a timeframe known as the “”campaign period”” doesn’t begin until 8 p.m. on the Sunday before spring quarter classes. Most candidates have interpreted this to mean that one cannot begin hanging posters or distributing glossy rave cards until this time.
Alas, nowhere in the elections bylaws does it say anything about candidates not being allowed to campaign until Sunday — and rightfully so, for to prevent candidates from telling others of their potential candidacy is to unlawfully restrict their freedom of speech. Candidates could start hanging posters today, if they wanted. Indeed, at this point, they are not even candidates and are not under the jurisdiction of the elections committee. They could conduct a full-fledged campaign during the entire winter quarter, and since they haven’t signed any forms declaring themselves official candidates, they wouldn’t be subject to any of the elections bylaws. Until the moment a student turns in his “”candidate packet”” to the A.S. secretary, he is not a candidate.
Run free while you can, little politicians. Run free! For the next two weeks, there are no rules.
