Our University System — All About The Free Speech
October 25th, 2007 | by Craig |But only if it’s the correct speech.
The Associated Students of the University of Montana (ASUM) allocates student activity fees, which are public funds, and lobbies students, the university administration and the state legislature on policy matters. In April 2004, Aaron Flint ran for the student senate. During the campaign, a large number of posters critical of him appeared around the campus. He believes they were placed by the University of Montana College Democrats and the liberal Montana Public Interest Research Group. Neither group is subject to the expenditure limits applied to candidates.
To counter this opposition, Flint spent $214.69 of his own money on professionally made posters and pizza for his campaign workers. He won. But because he spent an impermissible $114.69 — enough to buy seven large Domino’s pepperoni pizzas — to respond to unregulated speech, ASUM removed him from office. This presumably taught the university’s students important lessons about the civic danger posed by too many posters (too much political speech) and too much pizza, and about the dignity of the law.
I don’t know if they still do it, but MontPIRG used to be an opt-in option when you paid fees. It wasn’t much, something like $2-$3, and I never paid it.
Not because it was a political thing; no, it was because I was a cheapskate.
If the U keeps on like this, it’s almost enough to make one cheer for the Bobcats.
10 Responses to “Our University System — All About The Free Speech”
By Mark Tokarski on Oct 25, 2007 | Reply
Rules are rules. I agree that we need to get private money out of politics - you and I see eye to eye on that, but in this case, rules are rules. Cry me a river.
By Mary Ann Evans on Oct 25, 2007 | Reply
Equating unlimited political expenditures with free speech is tripe. We’ve replaced the one person one vote principle with the best government that money can buy.
By Craig on Oct 25, 2007 | Reply
The thing about rules is that they should be for me *and* thee.
By Dave Budge on Oct 25, 2007 | Reply
Mark, you must mean rules like Blacks having to sit at the back of the bus. Some things must be challenged - or have you forgotten Thoreau.
By Steve T. on Oct 25, 2007 | Reply
Flint did know the rules, and he broke them because he wanted it to go to court. Seriously, I think that’s pretty cool, aside from the fact that he’s dead wrong.
Lucky for us, the courts agree. It’ll be interesting to see if the Supreme Court takes it up. It seems like one they’d be interested in…
By Mark Tokarski on Oct 25, 2007 | Reply
Some day I’m going to read a book about how to put tongue in cheek. I’m obviously not very good at it.
By Rocky Smith on Oct 26, 2007 | Reply
Flint simply did it wrong. Instead of spending the money himself, he should have employed UM Republican groups to spend the $ to promote his cause. I’m sure all the liberals would have been fine with it had it been done that way.
By Steve T. on Oct 27, 2007 | Reply
Rocky- Flint did exactly what he wanted to do. He knew what he was doing, he wanted this to go to court, and that was the best way for him to do it. When are you guys going to get this through your heads?
By Rocky Smith on Oct 27, 2007 | Reply
I’m not unaware of that Steve. Had outside groups spent money in support of him, nothing would have been able to stop them. I doubt the “outside groups” working against him had no ties to his opposition. I’m also aware that ASUM had no authority to reign in these outside groups. This points out the futility of a $100 limit. Campaign finance rule changes are just as effective. That’s why Hillary is getting large donations from dishwashers who could never afford the donations they are making. Such regulations never seem to work, thus illustrating the futility of any campaign finance rules. Aside from that, pizza purchases shouldn’t count anyway. Everyone has to eat.
By Gman on Oct 30, 2007 | Reply
These political shenanigans are nothing new on college campuses:
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/