Friday, October 03, 2003
In summary
The previous post was a bit rambling and a bit rushed. I'll treat the letters' attitude in more detail later, but here's a list of issues:
Is the ASUC/GA allowed to spend money on political campaigns? While CalSERVE's invocation of the Southworth case seemed to suggest they were grasping at straws, regulation revisions made as part of a settlement in a later court case seem to suggest that the student government can spend money on political campaigns if those campaigns are helpful to students:
This revision reflects a condition of the Settlement Agreement in ASUCR v. Regents (U.S. District Court No. C98-00021 CRB), and permits the funding of official student government lobbying activities on student-related matters by compulsory student fees available to such governments, provided that any student is entitled to a pro rata refund under the procedures outlined elsewhere in the Guidelines.
GA has claimed fighting Prop 54 is, and that's gone more or less unchallenged. While CalSERVE has been playing this as a rights vs. oppressive authorities issue, by invoking court cases and all, they may not even be in violation of these particular regulations.
Was funding No on 54 viwepoint neutral? This may be the Republicans' angle on this, because with all the court cases being quoted, it's clear that if funding the campaign was not viewpoint neutral, somebody's going to get screwed. However, proving that something is not viewpoint neutral requires proving discrimination, and proving discrimination just doesn't happen, especially when it comes to conservatives. ("Snehal is discriminating against conservatives. Let's change the rules so it's okay.")
Is the ASUC/GA/University in violation of law because of unreported campaign expenditures? The Daily Cal hasn't raised this issue yet, and as a result, we have yet to hear arguments against this issue. I'm also rather unfamiliar with the law so I can't say a whole lot. But the issue does need to be raised. Here is some info:
Any person or combination of persons is considered to be a recipient committee pursuant to Government Code Section 82013(a), if contributions totaling $1,000 or more have been received in a calendar year for the purpose of influencing California’s city, county and/or state elections. Such persons must file the original and one copy of the Statement of Organization - Form 410 with the Secretary of State’s Political Reform Division within 10 days of qualifying as a recipient committee as specified in Government Code Section 84101(a).
Was the money spent, though? Does it matter? Is no on 54 a recipient committee?
Is the headquartering of the stop54 campaign in the ASUC offices illegal? Contact information at Stop54.org lists ASUC (that is, university) resources as the contact location. Again, I'm not familiar with the laws and policies in question, but Kevin seems to know that policies banning such action exist. I can't find it, but I don't know where to look. It would make sense that such regulations exist, though. Again, this issue needs to be raised.
. . .
|
. . .
|
