Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Spending Limits for Student Elections Upheld
A federal judge in Montana has denied an injunction sought by a student government leader at the University of Montana against the school's mandatory spending limits.
As Charles Johnson of the Billings Gazette reports, the student, a 24 year old named Aaron Flint, spent twice the $100 limit for student candidates, a violation he revealed the day before the polls opened for the student Senate. Other Senators voted to deny Flint the seat if he won, which he did. Flint then sued the University President to stop enforcement of the spending limits.
Money can distort university elections just as it can popular elections. Big money in any election shifts the focus of that election from who has the best things to say to who has the most money to say them. The University of Montana's spending limits were designed to make sure that the viewpoints of some of its students were not drowned out by the big bucks of others.
Flint and others who argue for unlimited spending in elections would do our democracy better by focusing on their message, and less on the money.
A federal judge in Montana has denied an injunction sought by a student government leader at the University of Montana against the school's mandatory spending limits.
As Charles Johnson of the Billings Gazette reports, the student, a 24 year old named Aaron Flint, spent twice the $100 limit for student candidates, a violation he revealed the day before the polls opened for the student Senate. Other Senators voted to deny Flint the seat if he won, which he did. Flint then sued the University President to stop enforcement of the spending limits.
Money can distort university elections just as it can popular elections. Big money in any election shifts the focus of that election from who has the best things to say to who has the most money to say them. The University of Montana's spending limits were designed to make sure that the viewpoints of some of its students were not drowned out by the big bucks of others.
Flint and others who argue for unlimited spending in elections would do our democracy better by focusing on their message, and less on the money.
Monday, August 30, 2004
Incumbents Enjoy Big Fundraising Advantage in Arizona
As John Kamman of The Arizona Republic reports, four members of Congress are facing unusually stiff opposition in their primaries this year. In this history of the state, no incumbent member of Congress has lost in the primary. Ever.
Despite these races being close, the incumbents still have at least one thing going for them - a fundraising advantage of anywhere from three to one all the way up to ten to one over their challengers.
There is not necessarily a clear-cut advantage to democracy in getting rid of incumbent elected officials. What is clear is that allowing big donors to give money in chunks of $2,000 to candidates or $5,000 to political action committees diminishes the voice of a large percentage of the electorate who can't afford such contributions.
Currently the candidate who spends the most in a congressional race wins more than 90% of the time. We'll keep an eye on the Arizona primary to see whether the pattern holds true or whether voters in Arizona break the hold of big money on their congressional elections.
As John Kamman of The Arizona Republic reports, four members of Congress are facing unusually stiff opposition in their primaries this year. In this history of the state, no incumbent member of Congress has lost in the primary. Ever.
Despite these races being close, the incumbents still have at least one thing going for them - a fundraising advantage of anywhere from three to one all the way up to ten to one over their challengers.
There is not necessarily a clear-cut advantage to democracy in getting rid of incumbent elected officials. What is clear is that allowing big donors to give money in chunks of $2,000 to candidates or $5,000 to political action committees diminishes the voice of a large percentage of the electorate who can't afford such contributions.
Currently the candidate who spends the most in a congressional race wins more than 90% of the time. We'll keep an eye on the Arizona primary to see whether the pattern holds true or whether voters in Arizona break the hold of big money on their congressional elections.
