Politicians, especially those who have been in office for a while, often talk a lot about reforming the “system.”
Many have lauded efforts to reform campaigns and elections, whether it be through finance laws, advertising regulations or disclosure requirements. However, one has to wonder if these reforms are meant to encourage a more open political discussion, or if they are meant to prevent new voices from entering the discussion by insulating those in power from successful challengers.
When looking through the pages and pages of UF Student Government’s “700 codes,” the rules and regulations governing SG elections, most rules seem logical and somewhat tame in their approach to keeping the system fair.
However, some of the codes are quite questionable, especially when it comes to their possible implications for free speech.
The first questionable, and probably most troubling, rule pertains to code 762.0, which states that campaign material “shall be labeled with the phrase ‘Registered Political Advertisement’” followed by the name of the person “who authorized the creation of, disbursement of, or payment for” that campaign material.
While there may be a seemingly coherent argument for wanting to make sure that all campaigning materials distributed are legitimate, it is in the definition of campaign material that one becomes concerned.
Code 700.4 (e) defines campaign material as “any print or electronic material used for the purpose of supporting a candidate or political party for an elective Student Body office, an initiative, a referendum question or proposed constitutional amendment.”
This is a somewhat disturbing rule, especially in the age of online communication and social networking. If I have a conversation with a candidate running for office on Facebook and that candidate fails to put “Reg. Pol. Ad” after everything he or she says, is the candidate violating election codes?
If someone posts something that the party in power does not like and the poster of that material fails to put “Reg. Pol. Ad,” can the party in power bring charges of election code violations against the minority party?
Let’s face it, the party in power will likely appoint people to the Elections Commission that are favorable to that party, given the current codes.
We want to make sure that we are clear: This is not about Unite Party versus Students Party.
Our argument stems from our overall concern about the students’ ability to be fairly represented and their ability to debate and discuss issues without fear that their speech might come into question.
Tomorrow, we will discuss another SG election code we feel has problematic implications for the free speech of students at UF.
