SIX HUNDRED and ninety-one dollars can buy a lot of things. A spot check at www.froogle.com reveals that a pair of new K2 Apache skis, a Jamis Dakar full-suspension mountain bike or a 14-karat yellow gold chain in round weave pattern can all be boght for that amount of money. Also, as the results of the University's pre-break student elections show, a spot on the Honor Committee can apparently be had for $691. That's the amount of money one winning candidate spent in the College of Arts and Sciences Honor representative race. Such a ludicrous amount spent by that candidate and others demonstrates a growing problem: That wide disparities in campaign funds adversely impact many candidates who simply don't have a high level of disposable income or choose not to spend their hard-earned money on hundreds of stickers, flyers and balloons. The University Board of Elections should examine this situation and implement an incentive-based spending cap.
Overall, $6,007 was spent in this year's elections, more than two-thirds of which occurred in Student Council executive races or the College's respective elections for Council, Honor and University Judiciary Committee representatives. Therefore, only these races where serious amounts of money were spent are pertinent when examining any relationship between campaign funds spent and actually winning an election. Additionally, Council presidential candidates received exponentially more press exposure than other candidates, leaving it unlikely that the $1,400 spent combined in that election did much to increase any one candidate's exposure.
The most compelling evidence of a relationship between spending and winning comes from the College's Honor representative contest. Out of a field of nine candidates, the three winning candidates spent more than three times as much ($1,411) as the rest of the field combined. In the College's Council representative election, two candidates together spent more than the other ten students running combined, and sure enough, those two candidates also received the most votes and were elected. The College UJC representative election saw six candidates vie for three seats. The candidate receiving the most votes was, not surprisingly, the one who spent the most money.
There are certainly other factors such as popularity or endorsements that can influence a candidate's chances of success in a given election. But the aforementioned evidence simply cannot be discounted as sheer coincidence. In an election like the College's Honor race, the candidates running had little initial name recognition. It takes money to buy the 500 posters, 500 buttons or 5,000 stickers purchased by the three winning Honor candidates to get the exposure necessary to win, and unfortunately many candidates simply don't have access to the hundreds of dollars needed to bankroll a successful campaign.
The University Board of Elections has not been ignorant to the problem of campaign financing. This year, the UBE initiated a campaign funds grant that offered $100 in reimbursement for qualifying expenditures to any candidate in some, but not all, races, Unfortunately, according to UBE Chair Steve Yang, only two students applied for the campaign grant, and one of them was eventually offered it.
An outright limit on candidate expenditures used to be standard fare at the University. But the UBE repealed the limit in 2004 to allow unlimited candidate spending. While sticky legal issues dealing with free speech stand in the way of reinstating an outright expenditure cap, the UBE should impose an incentive-based spending limit. Such a rule would limit candidates to a set amount of spending if they wanted to partake in some of the benefits offered by the UBE. For example, a candidate who spent more than the limit would not be included in the voting guide, or, in an extreme case, would not be allowed on the ballot and would have to run a write-in campaign.
UBE Chair Steve Yang said in an e-mail, "The idea of an incentive-based spending limit was discussed for this year, but the UBE decided not to implement one." Yang also noted, "The UBE is currently performing a comprehensive review of the Spring 2005 Elections, and campaign expenditures will definitely be one of the topics discussed."
Popularity, endorsements and time devoted to campaigning are all factors that can either help or hurt a candidate's chances of winning an election at the University. But whether or not a candidate has hundreds of dollars to drop on posters, stickers and flyers certainly shouldn't be a qualifying factor for victory, and the UBE should take the necessary steps to ensure that simply spending the most money doesn't equal getting the most votes.
Joe Schilling's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at jschilling@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
