U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy wrote that keeping a level playing field, by limiting campaign spending, helps provide all students equal access to the educational experience of serving in student government.
Citing U.S. Supreme Court decisions dealing with freedom of speech in schools, Molloy concluded the spending limits are a reasonable restriction on speech, because they are related to legitimate educational concerns.
The judgment resolves a case in which Aaron Flint, former ASUM president, challenged the cap on campaign spending. Flint said the restriction violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech.
The limit, in place since 1970, is $100 per candidate. ASUM reimburses candidates up to $45 each.
Flint and running mate Gail Price were censured by the student government for overspending on their campaign in 2003. Flint ran the following year for a post in the student Senate and spent more than double the allowed amount, disclosing his violation the day before the election. The ASUM Senate voted to deny Flint his seat.
He filed a lawsuit naming UM President George Dennison and the university.
Last summer, Flint was denied an injunction to stop enforcement of ASUM's spending limits or require that his seat remain unfilled pending a final court decision.
Molloy said participating in student government teaches students about the governmental process. UM's mission of education is served by the spending caps, he said, noting the university has a high percentage of students who receive financial aid. Without limits on campaign spending, only the wealthiest students could get the education that comes from serving in student government, Molloy said.
"Rendering student government an educational opportunity for only those students who can afford to run is contrary to a university's educational mission," he wrote.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)