To the Editor:
The Phillipian has made quite the fuss about Campaign Budget caps lately. Namely, that the lack of a budget cap has a corrosive impact on our election process.
I personally disagree with the Board’s assessment.
Under the pretense of equality, the Board has made an assumption that spending more money is somehow inextricably linked to more votes.
This is myth. Take the 2008 primary elections for the Alabama Board of Education for example. Stephanie Bell, who spent roughly $100,000 less than her opponent, ultimately won by more than 15,000 votes. In contrast, Mitt Romney did not receive the Republican nomination despite raising more money than any other Republican candidate. Linda McMahon, a wealthy wrestling tycoon, spent over $50 million but was unsuccessful in a senate run. The examples are frankly inexhaustible and could fill entire books.
At its core, the editorial’s insinuation is that Phillips Academy students are stupid enough to sell their vote for free merchandise.
Andover students are not stupid.
Our president elect helped start a community bike service program, created an online takeout website, and marketed his campaign masterfully with the easily digestible “5ignh plan”. He also gave out free gum on Election Day.
Aha. Forget the credentials and charisma; he must have won because of the gum!
Frankly, it is foolish to suggest that correlation implies causation in this case. If simple material bribes were so effective, candidates who papered the school with excessive election posters, or put 3-ply toilet paper in commons but had platforms that lacked sustenance would not have been eliminated so quickly.
Clearly experience, significant accomplishments, previous leadership positions and likability are the factors that matter to the Phillips Academy constituency.
In addition, campaign budget caps have been discussed for several years now, and no easily enforceable policy has emerged. The complexity of a campaign is likely the cause. If campaigns are limited to $50 will candidates still be able to use thousand dollar cameras? Can the administration host a website with enough flexibility to meet each candidates needs? Will candidates be able to express their platforms as comprehensively with all these limitations?
To endanger our current election system by solving a problem that does not exist is foolish. Instead, we should be discussing more important issues such as election censorship. This winter, candidates were told to remove certain posters because they were “offensive” by the administration. The majority of students and faculty had no objection to these “offensive” posters. Why was this allowed? And more importantly, why does nobody know about it?
Respectfully,
Haonan Li ‘13
Full disclosure: I’m a writer for the News section. I covered most of the recent presidential election.
Editor’s Note:
Mr. Li’s views do not represent those of The Phillipian. The Phillipian disagrees with Mr. Li’s interpretation of the editorial published in Volume CXXXIV Number 6, and stands by all of its coverage and editorials pertaining to the presidential election.
-Derek Farquhar
Commentary Editor CXXXIV