| No
rule in the University prescribes the maximum
amount which candidates for student posts can
spend for their campaigns. The presumption
is that they would not spend for campaigns.
Student offices being posts of honor rather
than offices of profit, it is to be inferred
that candidates should not allow money to play
part in vote-getting. Merit alone should be
the criterion in the student’s selection
of their leaders from among the candidates.
Student politics, however, has reached the stage when it becomes
necessary to spend for campaigns. Because of the size of the voting
constituency for student offices, it becomes impossible to acquaint
all the voters of the qualifications of the candidates without
intensive and extensive campaigning. Candidates must be introduced
to the electorate; printing expenses for cards and posters must
be incurred. Leaders must be given sufficient facilities to approach
the greatest number of voters in the least possible span of time;
travelling expenses arise. Other expenses, too many to itemize,
become absolute necessities whenever the contest for the coveted
post is keen. The urge of rivalry releases financial restraint.
We submit that a maximum limit to such expenses should not be
imposed. To set such a limit might seriously impair a candidate’s
efforts to enlighten student voters with respect to the relative
merits of rivals. His campaign efficiency may be reduced. Not having
been informed, the voter may consider personal affection. He would
vote blindly.
Campaign expenses should be regulated, not restricted. Candidates
should be required to submit an itemize report of campaign expenses.
The authorities should see to it that the expenses have been for
legitimate purposes.
Any expenditure, however insignificant in amount, which has been
incurred to secure votes by unfair or illicit means should be a
cause for disqualification and disciplinary action. Campaign expenses
must be incurred only for the purpose of having enlightened elections.
They should never be a means to the corruption of student voters.
This method of student regulation will incidentally minimize campaign
expenses, without such reduction being its end. Just as the Comptroller’s
office now supervises the accounts of student organizations, so
can it perform the function of regulating the campaign expenses
of student candidates.
No restraint will be placed on candidates’ efforts to secure
votes by legitimate means. Elections will be more reliable expressions
of student opinion. Both the voter and the candidate will be benefited.
|
