CAMPAIGN EXPENSES IN
STUDENT ELECTIONS
Ambrosio D. Padilla
July 15, 1932
No rule in the University prescribes the
maximum amount which candidates for student posts can spend for their campaigns. The
presumption is that they would not spend for campaigns. Student offices being posts of
honor rather than offices of profit, it is to be inferred that candidates should not allow
money to play part in vote-getting. Merit alone should be the criterion in the
student’s selection of their leaders from among the candidates.
Student politics, however, has reached the
stage when it becomes necessary to spend for campaigns. Because of the size of the voting
constituency for student offices, it becomes impossible to acquaint all the voters of the
qualifications of the candidates without intensive and extensive campaigning. Candidates
must be introduced to the electorate; printing expenses for cards and posters must be
incurred. Leaders must be given sufficient facilities to approach the greatest number of
voters in the least possible span of time; travelling expenses arise. Other expenses, too
many to itemize, become absolute necessities whenever the contest for the coveted post is
keen. The urge of rivalry releases financial restraint.
We submit that a maximum limit to such
expenses should not be imposed. To set such a limit might seriously impair a
candidate’s efforts to enlighten student voters with respect to the relative merits
of rivals. His campaign efficiency may be reduced. Not having been informed, the
voter may consider personal affection. He would vote blindly.
Campaign expenses should be regulated, not
restricted. Candidates should be required to submit an itemize report of campaign
expenses. The authorities should see to it that the expenses have been for legitimate
purposes.
Any expenditure, however insignificant in
amount, which has been incurred to secure votes by unfair or illicit means should be a
cause for disqualification and disciplinary action. Campaign expenses must be incurred
only for the purpose of having enlightened elections. They should never be a means to the
corruption of student voters.
This method of student regulation will
incidentally minimize campaign expenses, without such reduction being its end. Just as the
Comptroller’s office now supervises the accounts of student organizations, so can it
perform the function of regulating the campaign expenses of student candidates.
No restraint will be placed on
candidates’ efforts to secure votes by legitimate means. Elections will be more
reliable expressions of student opinion. Both the voter and the candidate will be
benefited. |
