The University Court upheld the decision Sunday night of the Election Board to disqualify Paul Dietzel and Tanesha Craig from the 2007 Student Government presidential election. After three court rulings and two appeals the court reached a final conclusion. The complaint originated from a complaint filed by SG Sen. Jesse Cohen, Graduate School. The issue concerns campaign spending. The disagreement began about the manner in which Campaign for Change, Dietzel’s campaign movement, would be classified because candidates on a ticket and independent candidates are allowed to spend different amounts of money. Complaints alleged Dietzel and Craig violated expenditure reports and exploited the parameters of the Election Code. As a ticket, presidential and vice presidential candidates can spend $2,500 for their campaign costs. According to Dietzel, Campaign for Change collectively spent around $5,000 to promote its members which technically exceeds the limit of funds allotted to the candidates. Change took advantage of the code. Dietzel and his supporters used collective funds to create Change banners and purchase punch cards. But they filed as independent candidates instead of as a ticket to spend more money than restrictions place on tickets.
Dietzel and Craig circumvented the rules of the system to get the best of both worlds. They were trying to act like a student organization for campaigning, evading active campaigning rules, but spending their money collectively like a ticket. Candidates should not take advantage of the Election Code. But the policies of the code must be rewritten. They are ambiguous and generate many gray areas for candidates. Change did not directly violate a provision within the Election Code. But the circumventing of the principles of the Election Code and court precedent should not be tolerated. While some may think the lack of actual violation of a rule should not disqualify the candidates, the spirit of the code must be upheld, and it is the court’s duty to do so. The disqualification is regrettable because the great diversity of candidates in the race will be reduced. While the decision to disqualify Dietzel sets precedent for a zero tolerance policy on overspending, the final decision to allow other members of Change to continue to run for office is laudable.
—–Contact the Editorial Board at [email protected]