Monday, September 29, 2003
Route 54
Daily Cal article. It doesn't mention much that the Daily Planet hasn't already, and includes errors:
"Furthermore, although the Southworth ruling allows student governments to lobby, ASUC officials are at odds with each other over whether the term incorporates campaigning on ballot initiatives."
A little fact-checking, as the BDP did, and as I did, will point out that the Southworth ruling does not allow student governments to lobby, but rather it allows universities to allow student governments to lobby. UC has not done this, and Southworth doesn't change that. Shame, Daily Cal, shame. Spread the word. At the very least, present this interpretation of the issue. You're doing a disservice to your readers. Ask Boalt Law guy Jesse Choper like the Planet did, I'm sure he'll tell you the same thing. The way it's written, The Daily Cal is claiming an inaccuracy as a fact.
Although Graduate Assembly President Jessica Quindel originally said the $35,000 went directly to the campaign, the ASUC now claims that the student government is, in fact, a student group.
"The ASUC is a registered student organization, so the ASUC in some ways can be seen as a student group," said Anu Joshi, ASUC external affairs vice president.
UC policies state that student governments are official units of the system and are subject to those same regulations on expenditures.
This isn't just a nomenclatural confuzzlement. If you were to claim that the ASUC was a student group, you would have to wonder how it is that the ASUC can possibly be charged with allocating money to the ASUC in the same manner as it allocates money to other student groups. If the ASUC was just a student group, it would have no authority to allocate compulsory student fees. The fact that it does have that authority removes it from the authority that student groups have when it comes to political spending. It's not just a student group the way BCR is, but rather it's an extension of UC. If it wants to be a student group, I wholeheartedly encourage it to be one, but that would mean it would have to do independent fundraising, and stop demanding fees from students.
Still, if ASUC is deemed a student group, then it must explain how another student group, the Berkeley College Republicans, could not use ASUC funds for security costs at UC Regent Ward Connerly's speech—at the same time the Graduate Assembly sent $35,000 to campaign against Proposition 54.
Well, it's about time BCR gets into the fight. BCR is perhaps the only group with both the standing and the motivation to take any action on this issue. Even if ASUC is not a student group, BCR still has some claim to ASUC funds because it is an ASUC-sponsored registered student group. (whether that claim extends to providing security for the speech is a different issue)
. . .
|
. . .
|
