This year the Student Council presidential election was marked by concerns of candidate overspending, the result of an unclear campaign budget policy. Candidates are advised to spend up to $50 on their campaigns, but the budget rule does not specify whether other students can spend additional money on a candidate’s behalf. The rule is also not included in the Student Council bylaws but is informally enforced by the Student Council President, Vice-President and Executive Secretary. Students, worried about candidate spending, approached Paul Murphy, Dean of Students, days before the final round of the presidential election. Around the same time, Murphy had also noticed and was concerned by campaign paraphernalia he saw, such as wristbands and T-shirts. Despite the recent concerns over overspending, this year’s allegations were not as serious compared to previous years, according to Murphy. Murphy said, “There have been some years… when more kids were spending lots and lots of money, giving things away to students [and] basically buying votes, which is not what we’re about.” “I don’t think this year’s case [was] a wildly out-of-control situation, but I do think that we want to be as clear [about the budget rule] as we possibly can next year,” he continued. Though less visible, Student Council did not notice some cases of over-spending this year. Mike MacKay ’11, President of Student Council, said, “There was this influx of merchandise as the final round approached, and we just couldn’t respond to it in time, within the two-day window.” Murphy said, “Trying to put [an investigation] together at the last minute made no sense… Some of the allegations went back to even before spring break. Other candidates also had spent quite a bit, and friends of candidates had spent money along the way.” According to Murphy, every year there are instances of students spending money to support their friends’ campaigns. “We don’t have a lot of control over that,” Murphy said. “Kids want to support their friends. There’s just a fine line between showing your support and spending.” MacKay said, “In my personal view, I think that buying a hundred goods for yourself or having your best friend buying a hundred goods for you and distributing them are one and the same.” The budget was originally capped at $25 and was created to motivate candidates to spend their money reasonably and prevent the presidential elections from “getting out of control,” said Murphy. In future elections, Murphy is considering restricting candidates to using mediums such as posters and movies for promotion. “We’re trying to have campaigns about ideas, about personality, and not about free gifts,” he said. Student Council’s Executive Board, which consists of the current President, Vice President and Executive Secretary, is primarily responsible for enforcing the budget rule. Though the rule is not stated explicitly in Student Council’s bylaws, the Board introduced the spending limit to candidates at an informational meeting for presidential candidates. Khalil Flemming ’12, a candidate that made it to the final six, said that he was not at the meeting and was indirectly informed of the budget rule after hearing other students discuss overspending. MacKay said that the Board partly relied on the candidates policing themselves to follow the guidelines. MacKay said that when he discussed the spending limit with Faiyad Ahmad ’10, last year’s President, before campaigns began, Ahmad advised him “to create a campaign atmosphere focused on ideas and less on the actual binding restriction [of a spending cap].” “However, this year there was some unregulated spending, and I think moving forward, the response to such acts are going to have to be more severe to keep with the integrity of the election,” continued MacKay. MacKay hopes to clearly define the budget rule, establish appropriate penalties for violation of the limit and add the rule to Student Council’s bylaws. “Because of the gray area about what is considered overspending, either by the candidate or by their friends… candidates [this year] had some leeway in that matter,” noted MacKay. MacKay and Jackie Lender ’11, Vice President of Student Council, are already redrafting Student Council’s outdated constitution and hope to get it ratified by the next Student Council meeting. The Executive Board recently met to discuss how to address the issue of overspending for next year’s presidential campaigns. They decided to advise the incoming Executive Board to inform the student body of the budget rule. MacKay explained, “It will come down to the voter… using his or her awareness and understanding that if there’s a candidate giving out an excess of merchandise, it’s most likely dishonesty because there is that $50 campaign budget.” The Board also discussed the idea of having next year’s Board keep paper trails on the campaign expenditures of each candidate. Uday Singh ’12, incoming President, spent money mainly on posters. One of his friends bought wristbands and gum to distribute to supporters. For next year, Singh is considering allowing an unlimited budget for posters while closely regulating the candidates’ merchandise. Min Jae Yoo ’12, next year’s Vice President, paid between $40 and $50 for posters and five packs of sticky notes to use in his campaign. His friends in Pease House each contributed $30 to pay for 50 T-shirts, each costing $5.89. Colton Dempsey ’12, next year’s Executive Secretary, spent about $40 on posters and a tablecloth from which he made banners. Brianna Barros ’12, another candidate that made it to the final six, and Flemming respectively spent $32.50 and between $20 to $30 on making posters. Besides spending money on posters, Yuni Sumawijaya ’12, a final six candidate, was given an early birthday present by a few of her friends who pooled their money to buy about 20 lacrosse pinnies to support her campaign.
