The student government passed a controversial bill this week capping how much money SGA election candidates can raise for the first time since 2004.
But questions remain about the bill’s legality.
Debate leading up to Wednesday’s vote centered on the amount candidates will be allowed to raise, with members finally settling on $3,500 per party. Student Government Association officials say the cap will help open the field to those who can’t afford to run an expensive campaign.
“I’m proud of all of us for passing it before the end of the semester,” Speaker of the Legislature Nick Chamberlain said. “This gives students outside of the SGA time to formulate their campaign to the rules so the people inside of the SGA don’t have an unfair advantage.”
But the new restrictions also raise the issue of whether a cap violates the U.S. Constitution. Past SGA officials say limiting campaign funding restricts free speech.
Former SGA President Andrew Rose contacted SGA President Andrew Friedson Tuesday to discourage the bill, both confirmed.
“It’s unconstitutional to limit how much money is spent,” Rose said. “You’re limiting free speech.”
“It seems to me, it would run afoul of how the First Amendment relates to campaign spending,” government and politics associate professor Frances Lee said. However, she added that she wasn’t sure of the SGA’s obligations because it is a student group.
In an e-mail message, university Legal Affairs counsel Diane Krejsa said, “The campaign rules, including spending limits, for SGA office are not prescribed by the university … . As such, there is a strong argument that the First Amendment does not apply because a private student organization – the SGA – not the state, has imposed the restrictions.”
“It’s a complicated question and still not clear,” Krejsa said in an interview.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that campaign contributions are a form of speech. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided that the ruling does not apply to student governments because they are educational tools rather than governing bodies.
That decision is being appealed to the Supreme Court now.
The constitutionality of the spending cap was not debated at the SGA’s meeting Wednesday, where members wrangled mainly over how high to set the cap.
Speaker Pro Tempore Corey Peterson and freshman legislator Steven Glickman argued for a higher cap to keep any one donor from filling a party’s entire campaign chest.
“I don’t think one person should be able to fund an entire campaign,” Peterson said.
Legislators eventually settled on an amendment stating “no one person can contribute more than 50 percent of a ticket’s spending cap.”
After voting on 12 amendments, the legislature applauded in relief after the election rules passed, establishing caps at $250 a legislator, $2,500 for an executive and $3,500 for an entire party.
taustindbk@gmail.com
