Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Spending Limits for University Student Government Candidates:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_05_27-2007_06_02.shtml#1180729450
The [1]Ninth Circuit just released a very interesting opinion on this
subject (thanks to [2]How Appealing for the pointer). The opening
paragraph strikes me as a good model of how to provide an effective
frame for a persuasive argument, a frame that will guide the reader's
thinking as the rest of the work is read:
We are called upon to decide whether the University of Montana may
impose a dollar limit on what a student may spend on his campaign
for student office. The University�s limit did not affect how the
money could be spent; rather, it directly told a student how much
he could spend to get elected. The Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 could not tell James Buckley how much of his money he could
spend to be elected a United States Senator. Buckley v. Valeo, 424
U.S. 1, 51-54 (1976) (per curiam). Why, then, may a state
university tell students how much they may spend to be elected to
student office? Because, unlike the exercise of state-wide
political self-determination at a national level at issue in
Buckley, the student election at issue here occurred in a limited
public forum, that is, a forum opened by the University to serve
viewpoint neutral educational interests but closed to all save
enrolled students who carried a minimum course load and maintained
a minimum grade-point average. These educational interests outweigh
the free speech interests of the students who campaigned within
that limited public forum.
The court, I think, is quite right to conclude that because student
government and student elections are university functions, they should
be treated as limited fora, and that the test is therefore
viewpoint-neutrality (clear here) plus reasonableness. Here's the
court's reasonableness analysis, which also strikes me as persuasive:
The evidence before us clearly shows that the University views the
spending limitation as vital to maintain the character of ASUM and
its election process as an educational tool, rather than an
ordinary political exercise....
We find that the spending limits reasonably serve this pedagogical
aim. ASUM exists to teach students responsible leadership and
behavior. Imposing limits on candidate spending requires student
candidates to focus on desirable qualities such as the art of
persuasion, public speaking, and answering questions face-to-face
with one�s potential constituents. Students are forced to campaign
personally, wearing out their [shoe]-leather rather than wearing
out a parent�s -- or an activist organization�s -- pocketbook. Our
conclusion is supported by the declaration of Gale Price, former
ASUM President:
Unlimited spending in ASUM elections also would change the nature
of the election process as a learning experience. The spending
limits mean that students have to figure out no-cost or low-cost
ways of campaigning. They have to plan ahead to figure out their
strategy, rather than just dumping a lot of money into advertising
materials at the last minute. They have to make decisions about
allocating their resources effectively. Without spending limits,
the well-off students would not have to face these constraints or
make these kinds of decisions in the course of running for ASUM.
In any case, if you're interested in the issue, read the whole First
Amendment analysis -- it's quite accessible even to laypeople. (You
can skip the standing and sovereign immunity sections, though, unless
you're interested in those topics.)
References
1.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F2524EF5D60EA40882572ED0001E1CC/$file/0535441.pdf?openelement
2. http://howappealing.law.com/
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
