Aaron Flint has long since received his degree from the University of Montana, but the federal case that arose from his campaign for a seat in student government lingers on.
Most recently, the 9th District Court of Appeals upheld a district court judge's ruling that spending limits for student campaigns do not violate constitutional rights to free speech - even if they do violate those rights when applied to campaigns outside the university setting.
We don't honestly believe anyone at UM was trying to regulate speech. In fact, we believe supporters of the spending limits are simply trying to encourage equal access to student government for all students. The problem is, while such goals are admirable, they should not be pursued at the cost of basic constitutional rights.
Of course, Flint was looking to have his rights violated when he sought to challenge the longstanding $100 limit imposed on all student candidates for ASUM elections. He believes the limit is unconstitutional and wanted to force the issue by intentionally overspending on his campaign - which he did, by spending a total of $214.69. He then self-reported the violation and was removed from office.
Under pro bono representation by the James Madison Center for Free Speech, Flint then sued the university and UM President George Dennison in federal court, arguing his constitutional right to free speech was violated. But U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula upheld the university's spending limits, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, stating that ASUM is a limited “educational benefit” and therefore not subject to the same rights and protections as other political groups.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will agree to take up this case and reverse the lower courts' unfortunate reasoning. The highest court in the land has already determined that spending limits for public campaigns are a violation of free speech. It has also ruled that free-speech rights may be restricted in a high-school setting, a fact Molloy pointed out in his ruling. The question it has yet to decide is whether limits on free speech also apply to student government groups.
We certainly hope they don't.
Universities are, after all, public institutions, and student government groups oversee large amounts of public money. ASUM senators make real policy and budget decisions that directly affect their constituents - the students - of which there are thousands. Campaign spending restrictions are no more appropriate on campus than they would be in a particular city ward, or a certain state district.
What's more, ASUM senators frequently lobby other government groups on students' behalf. If university government groups aren't real governments, can they be exempted from open-meetings laws? And if speech restrictions apply to student government groups, would they also apply to other groups of “educational benefit” - such as student newspapers?
The bottom line is, if student-government groups are to remain effective, they must be treated like other government groups. Indeed, such treatment would provide students with a more genuine experience and better prepare them for the rigors of campaigning outside the university, and thus increase the “educational benefit” of their participation.
For all these reasons, no matter the court's ultimate decision, the university and ASUM should act now to repeal their campaign spending limits.
|
 |
 |
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)