The two major student political parties have spent significantly more than third parties for ASUC campaign materials, and some candidates are in danger of exceeding spending limits if the cost of food from campaign events is included.
According to ASUC bylaws, if spending surpasses $1,000 per executive candidate or $200 per senate candidate, the ASUC attorney general is required to investigate “alleged violations” and prosecute alleged offenders before the ASUC Judicial Council, the legal branch of the student government.
Candidates are required to report all spending that falls under the category of “campaign materials” that has the “intent to contact voters publicly … or argues in favor of the election,” according to the bylaws.
Documents show Student Action has reported spending a total of more than $4,000 and CalSERVE has spent a total of almost $1,400. However, CalSERVE party chair Courtney McDonald said the party’s biggest expenses — campaign literature and buttons — had not been reported yet.
ASUC Attorney General Deepti Rajendran and Elections Council chair Pamudh Kariyawasam previously said in interviews that spending limits would include the cost of food. But candidates claim they were unaware food would count as part of their limit.
As a result, Rajendran said she and the Elections Council decided to meet and discuss the issue Thursday. Yet Sabina Del Rosso, a former ASUC senator and current party chair for Student Action, said in an email that the party has “confirmed with the elections council chair that food does not in fact count as a campaign expense.”
Kariyawasam said the council should make a decision within the next two days. He added that after independent consultation with the attorney general, a clause in the bylaws could make food not qualify as a campaign expense.
Rajendran said food has traditionally not been included as a campaign expenditure. She said the council planned to include food as part of campaign spending limits, but by “the time they got around to it, people had already started to order their stuff.”
“People didn’t factor it in,” Rajendran said. “The bylaws are vague.”
According to ASUC campaign finance forms, Student Action has spent $478.27 for each of its four executive candidates and $118.82 for each of its 18 senate candidates. In comparison, McDonald said her party had spent more than $80 for each of its 11 senate candidate and more than $110 for its four executive candidates.
Both parties spent money on sign materials, chalk, buttons and fliers, among other expenses. General party spending — such as party T-shirts and sunglasses — does not count under the bylaws, a point of contention for many third parties that say this spending gives an advantage.
Based on how much the Student Action candidates have already spent, if the cost of food is assessed at more than $81.18 for each senate candidate, they would exceed bylaw limits. A source close to the party who asked to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to speak about the matter saved receipts showing one candidate spent more than $100 on food for a kickoff event.
For CalSERVE, if the cost of food is assessed at more than $120 for each senate candidate, the candidates will have exceeded spending limits.
The Defend Affirmative Action Party has spent almost $850 for executives and senators combined. SQUELCH! reported spending more than $160 for candidates, and no paperwork has been turned in for Students for a Democratic University, according to campaign finance documents.
Chloe Hunt is the lead student government reporter.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
If you give food to people to make them vote for you, it’s a campaign expense, period. Maybe the only reason the Judicial Council hasn’t sanctioned the two major parties is because THEY ARE PRECISELY THE PEOPLE WHO APPOINT JUDICIAL COUNCIL MEMBERS.
fuck CalServe and all it’s GDI supporters
corruption in sacramento, corruption in the administration, corruption in the ASUC.
The only hope is voting in someone outside the establishment.
Is SDU it? Not sure. But i think it is worth a try
Strange definition of “corruption”. Spending your own money on food for your campaign is not corrupt.
Its ridiculous that there are limits on the amount of your own money that you can spend in ASUC campaigns anyway as they violate the right to freedom of speech (which is why you don’t see them in any federal state or local elections).
You’re own money? These two parties have literally spent thousands and thousand of dollars on a STUDENT campaign. Are you really going to suggest that this is fair?
Of course it’s not fair. It’s money influencing politics. The parties with the most money have a clear advantage. So the elections have much less to do with a candidate’s competence an ethics, and more to do with donors (Don’t pretend StudentAction and CalServe don’t have donors). You may have a different perspective where it’s fair for money to dictate a student election, but that doesn’t make Kim Zhou’s any less valid.
The ASUC student government makes our state politicians look competent. However, both groups will be very effective at bringing Cal’s students to their knees. The legislature will cut funding, and the student government will focus on things that don’t help the students.
if the “Bylaws are vague”
then why ere on the side of more spending?
that’s like corruption in American politics.
i want to vote for SDU. i hope they file their financial stuff soon because i want to see waht they spend…
Sqeulch and SDU! (Students for a Democratic University)
Please don’t let them play the ignorance game. Rules are rules, and if something was vague, they should have asked clarifying questions.
Actually, the rules are the rules period. It is not up to the attorney general to put his own spin on something that is vague. If the rule doesn’t say it includes food, then it doesn’t include food.
you’re perspective is a bit off.
the “rules” are the election bylaws.
the bylaws don’t actually list anything specific. instead, they say that the questionable material must “explicitly” serve a non-campaign function. (article xvii.1.5)
food is not explicitly non-campaign material–which is to say (double negative), it IS a campaign material.
it’s used just like handing out sunglasses or flyers, so it should count. that is what the bylaw says.
but the precedent for the last 10+ years is that food has not counted. for either party.
precedent is *NOT* an excuse to keep doing things incorrectly, especially not when ppl are now aware of the contradiction.
according to the bylaw, food should count. read the article; the council knew, as they’ve said in interviews that food would count.
“we would follow the bylaws, but… see, we’ve been breaking them all this time… why should we fix it now?”
I totally agree..
Typical that the establishment parties would get the exemption from the election committee who is filled with their own appointees!
Lets turn out this whole mess.
Check out Students for a Democratic University!
This is why people should support third party candidates. I encourage people to look at SQUELCH! candidates and other prominent independents like Brad Mosell.