If Campaign Limits Work for College Elections, Why Not Federal Elections?
By David Fialkov -- Intern
Posted on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:14:29 PM EST
Last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it does not violate Free Speech to limit the amount that a college student can spend on an election for student-body president.
For 35 years, the University of Montana student-government has limited the amount that students can spend to $100. Despite the fact that limiting the amount a candidate running for federal office can spend on his campaign violates freedom of speech, the 9th Circuit court found that this rule does not apply to STUDENT-elections.
In explaining its reasoning, the court had this to say:
The primary intent of the spending limits is to prevent student government's being diverted by interests other than ones educational.
The court acknowledged that there are various other justifications for the spending limits. First, student governments at universities around the country have similar rules because such spending limits assure that students of limited financial means have a fair chance to win election to student government. The limits also contribute to diversity in student government, as many schools have minority populations that are disproportionately likely to come from low-income families, and thus have few financial resources to spare for campaigns.
Surely, all of the justifications for imposing spending limits in student government campaigns apply equally, if not more forcefully, to elections for national or statewide office. If only professional politicians were as wise as student politicans.
Tags: Public Financing, money in politics, fair elections (all tags)
You are not logged in.
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.
