At the end of the spring semester, we wrote a series of editorials addressing UF Student Government election codes and their negative implications for student free speech.
First, we discussed the issue with code 762.0, which requires that candidates and parties attach “Registered Political Advertisement” to all campaign materials. Due to a vague definition of campaign material, this code could be enforced against almost anything someone says in favor of or against a particular candidate or party.
Next, we questioned code 761.1, which appeared to constrain “any intentional action in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate or political party for an elective student body office” to a four-week period.
Both of these codes provide ample opportunity for the party in power to limit student free speech, especially for those students who have aspirations to run for office.
At the end of last semester, the UF Supreme Court recommended that SG amend the rules to clarify the meaning of “campaigning” and determine when these activities could occur.
We were hopeful that the Student Senate would revise the rules to remove these vague and draconian limitations on free speech. Instead, this evening the Student Senate will be voting on whether to add even stricter rules to candidates, political parties and, perhaps, even the general student body.
First, the proposed code revisions now clearly stipulate that campaign activities can only occur on the first day of the active election cycle, or four weeks before election day. Election-specific material, such as things that say “vote for,” cannot occur until one week prior to the first day of elections.
They also added “Internet posts” to its definition of campaign material, which now extends the ability of the Elections Commission to give violations to online communications that do not have “Reg. Pol. Ad.”
Because the codes surrounding this requirement are so vague, an election-related post by a student who is not running for office that does not bear “Reg. Pol. Ad.” could potentially lead to an election code violation for the candidate or party that was mentioned by the student.
These code revisions clearly violate student free speech and deserve serious scrutiny from the entire student body.
While this might not seem like a big deal to some, if you do support someone running for office in SG in the future, simply saying something in support of him or her at the wrong time or without adding “Reg. Pol. Ad.” could cost the election.
The Senate should, without question, vote against these election code revisions. We strongly encourage you to contact your senator to tell him or her to vote against these revisions.
We also encourage you to attend this meeting. It will be held at 7 p.m. tonight in Reitz Union 282.
