Last Thursday, the Editorial Board called for the Undergraduate Senate to limit ASSU candidates’ campaign spending. It is unfortunate that the Editorial Board entered the yearlong debate now, agreed with a bill that they will undoubtedly poke millions of holes in an “exposé” piece if enacted, brought nothing new to the discussion and made factual errors.

Elections Commissioner, Quinn Slack ’11 did not suggest public financing of slates up to $2,000. His proposal involving $1,000 public financing plus $1,000 in personal matching funds would effectively help to make all slates viable. It was not “Slack’s alternative” but a compromise brokered by ASSU officials after hours of meetings.

Enforcement and constitutional issues such legislation would provoke as well as the deliberative nature of the legislative process need to be highlighted. Instead of the government enforcing spending caps, it is essential that everyone work to transform the campus elections culture.

Campaign finance reform has emerged as an important issue after recent candidates. For example, the Dorsey/Harris Executives spent over $3,500 to win two years ago. Unlike the Senate race where candidates spend an average of $20, the financial resources required to mount an Executive run represent a high barrier to entry for many students.

We all want to promote equal opportunity to run for ASSU office. Leveling the playing field is an important objective and one I fully support. However, rushing blindly through the process is irresponsible and dangerous.

The proposal consists of the following elements. A mandatory, government-enforced cap of $2,000 is placed on all executive slates. Each slate submits a budget to the ASSU, and the ASSU Financial Manager provides a credit card with a $2000 spending limit. After the race, the slate will repay the amount post-elections season. Campaign monitors will observe campaign activities and report inconsistencies regarding the number of T-shirts or flyers seen and the stated number on the original budget. If there is a violation, the slate will be disqualified by the joint Senate and Graduate Student Council.

First, there are a number of implementation issues. For example: “campaign-related activity” spending needs clearer guidelines. The burden of proof required to potentially disqualify candidates from the race needs to be better established. In a special-interest-dominated electorate, spending caps may result in third party campaigning and increased polarization in campus politics – much as it does at the national level.

Second, spending caps are legally problematic as they violate Constitutional Council precedents. The ASSU Constitution explicitly protects freedom of speech. Article I, Section 3.2 states: “The Association shall enact no legislation…prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The Constitutional Council ruled unanimously in Hartke v. Young [Case 5, 2000] that mandatory restrictions on campaign spending violate this section of the ASSU Constitution.

The third problem is that the reputation of the ASSU is at stake. The ASSU already suffers from a credibility crisis due to resignations and allegations of financial misconduct by elected officials from this and past years. Thus, it is critical that campaign finance reform, which will affect the future of Stanford student governance for years to come, is not taken lightly.

Reducing spending will not help to legitimize the ASSU. Faced with the prospect of disqualifying a winning slate because of slight overspending, the legislative bodies will either disenfranchise a majority of voters, or shy away from enforcing rules. Either way further cripples the institution.

A more effective way forward is a two-pronged approach: enhance the existing pubic financing option, which comes from the elected Executive’s salary, not student money. And propel a cultural change leading to a more informed electorate. The legislative bodies should support the increase in public financing from $750 to $1,000 to expand access for students. Rather than buying expensive T-shirts, these candidates can choose to run smarter campaigns through creative online marketing and face-to-face outreach.

Campus media has a crucial role to play to achieve the broader goal. Publications promote accountability of our student leaders and raise political awareness among constituents. In the future, the Daily, the Review and the Progressive need to fulfill their democratic obligations and exercise more rigorous oversight. They should serve as “watch dogs” and pursue investigative journalism that expose candidates’ spending habits from public posting of campaign expenditures on elections website, publicize infractions and provoke discourse among voters.

Voters, already with a predisposition towards fiscal responsibility, would serve as the policing force. Stanford students care deeply about matters of equality, and they will vote accordingly. An engaged student body is the best mechanism to disincentivize excessive spending. An educated electorate would also focus more on the substantive issues rather than a “publicity arms race.”

Let’s not be a government that legislates in the dark rules whose consequences we do not fully understand.

Shelley Gao ’11 writes weekly on university policies and campus issues. She is a second term Undergraduate Senator, having served as the Senate Chair 08-09. Her views do not necessarily represent the ASSU. Contact Shelley at [email protected].