The Missouri Students Association elections officially got underway Monday night, and with it came the implementation of a slew of bylaw changes.
Board of Elections Commissioners Chairman Tyler Ricketts has done a great job thus far of recognizing problems with previous elections and responding by tweaking old rules or adding new ones. During the summer, the BEC banned campaigning in fraternity and sorority houses and changed the definition of “mass emails” from an email sent to 200 or more people to an email sent to just two people. We have no doubt these rules will help make the election more fair.
But while we appreciate the changes, we can’t help but notice a massive loophole in the BEC handbook.
Searching the handbook, there’s absolutely no mention of funding. No rules on the source of the money or how much of it there is. During an election that will likely see an influx of thousands of dollars, that’s a pretty big fluke.
It isn’t news to anyone that elections can be bought — it happens on the state and federal levels regularly. What is concerning is the possibility of that practice reaching MSA’s elections. Right now, there’s nothing standing in the way of the MSA presidency going to the highest bidder.
Rumors have been circling MSA since the spring, when senators began speculating who would make up this fall’s slates. Eventually, they boiled down to one worry: Certain slates would have more access to campaigns funds than others. A lot more.
During the Fall 2011 election, of the candidates for president and vice president, five of the six were involved with Greek Life. This year, another slate involved with Greek Life, to no fault of their own, has access to a potentially game-changing amount of money.
For a slate that’s only half-Greek, that could be a disadvantage. For slates with membership of houses with smaller budgets, it’s also possible for them to be overshadowed by fraternities with more money.
The lack of regulations could turn the election into a measurement of wealth.
While the BEC was reacting to last year’s election issues, an entirely new issue was forming. It’s a shame funding wasn’t regulated proactively in the face of so much concern.
We don’t blame candidates involved in Greek Life for turning to their houses for money — who wouldn’t? Running a campaign is expensive, and fraternities and sororities can be great sources for funding. But when members of Greek Life have access to much larger sums of money than their opponents, something is wrong.
There’s a variety of ways for the BEC to regulate spending, by putting a cap on spending or changing campaign funding altogether. The Residence Halls Association, for instance, budgets funds for campaigns, and each slate receives the same amount to spend. There are ways to keep an eye on campaign spending, but so far the BEC isn’t looking. It needs to start somewhere.
With the current setup, it’s easy for quality candidates to be deterred from running because they don’t have the funds. Not to say this year’s candidates aren’t qualified, but to have a successful campaign won’t be enough. They also have to have income.
The BEC should at least be having a conversation about the money flowing into MSA’s election. Funding is a fundamental part of any campaign, and for it to not even be mentioned, much less regulated, in the bylaws is sure to lead to trouble.
