Campaign Expenses in Student Elections
Ambrosio S. Padilla, Jul 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.