After being tabled at the March 27 meeting of the Wesleyan Student Assembly (WSA), a campaign finance reform proposal was passed by a vote of 22 to 1 this past Sunday, with two abstentions and nine absences. The proposal, created by the student group Wesleyan Charter of Democracy Matters, and sponsored by WSA Vice President Benjamin Firke ’12, seeks to limit the advantage of candidates’ own economic resources when campaigning during WSA elections.

According to Syed Ali ’13, a member of the WSA and Democracy Matters, the proposal reflected the WSA’s understanding that student criticism of previous elections must be met with reform.

“Almost the entire WSA recognized the need for something like this,” Ali said. “We had an overwhelming majority, even in those who weren’t there. There was some concern about certain aspects of the proposal, but I feel most people realized the need for a fair environment.”

The proposal stipulates that candidates may spend only $50 of their own funds on campaigns. In addition to the $50 limit, candidates are permitted unlimited personal printing on standard 8×11 paper and 500 pages of free printing from the WSA office. Additionally, the WSA Elections Committee will increase from three to five seats, including one non-WSA member who is appointed by the WSA, to ensure that candidates’ adherence to these new rules can be more closely monitored.

According to the head of the Wesleyan Charter of Democracy Matters, Corey Guilmette ’13, the reform was created in response to campus-wide scrutiny of recent WSA campaigns, which led some students to question the influence of heavy spending in the election outcomes. Guilmette fears that the belief that a student can be elected to the WSA only if he or she is willing to spend money out of pocket will create a perceived financial barrier to run for WSA office.

“We are trying to make [campaigns] more ‘need-blind,’” Guilmette told The Argus in the Feb. 1 issue. “There will never be a question of ‘Did they win because they had more money than the other group?’ It would be ‘They won because either they were more motivated, going door-to-door talking to people, or they had better ideas.’”

Such concerns arose in the Spring 2010 presidential election, when current WSA President Micah Feiring ’11 and Vice President Firke distributed bottle openers and pamphlets to the student body.

“I think because of the way [Feiring and Firke] ran their campaign, there is a perception by many students that they only won because they spent the most money,” Guilmette said. “I believe they would have won even without spending as much. However, the goal for our resolution is that students will no longer question whether someone won because of money.”

Democracy Matters originally proposed that the WSA provide $200 of campaign funds for each candidate. However, because of the WSA’s limited resources and the concern for creating a precedent of expensive campaigns, the proposal was changed to create limitations on individual’s own financial contributions.

At the March 27 WSA meeting, Democracy Matters proposed a $25 cap on personal spending on the campaign as part of their proposed reform. At the April 3 meeting however, an amendment to raise the cap to $50 was agreed upon, as representatives argued that the lower limit would hamper candidate creativity. Guilmette saw this amendment as unnecessary.

“I disagreed with that claim and asked for something that would be reasonable that couldn’t be done for $25,” Guilmette said. “No one offered anything.”

Despite the change, Guilmette remains hopeful that these reforms will have a positive impact on the spring 2011 WSA election, which has already begun. WSA presidential candidates Joe O’Donnell ’13, Zach Malter ’13, and Melody Oliphant ’13 all voiced their support for the campaign finance reform measure. Although Malter was not in attendance at Sunday’s meeting, he said he vocally supported the reform.

“The proposal sends the message to candidates flirting with idea of spending a lot of money not to,” Malter said. “Extravagant spending should not distort the playing field and create an economic barrier in the campaign process.”

Both Oliphant and O’Donnell were present at Sunday’s meeting and voted in favor of the amended proposal. O’Donnell additionally argued in favor of an amendment against allowing unlimited personal printing, claiming that students with more resources will still hold an advantage.

“My issue is that, while the current proposal prevents ‘professional or outside printing services,’ there’s nothing that prevents a student from purchasing a high-quality laser printer and unlimited paper and ink cartridges and printing off as many fliers as he or she wants,” O’Donnell said. “This is a huge loophole I think will lead to excessive paper waste and the same kind of unappealing campaigning we saw last year.”

Questions of enforceability of the reform also arose at Sunday’s meeting. Specifically, the council debated whether the spending cap could be effectively monitored because it is the responsibility of the candidates to disclose their expenditures. However, Guilmette maintains that signs of abuse would be obvious enough that the WSA Elections Committee would be able to see and respond effectively.

“If a candidate violates the spending limit, and that violation gives them extra votes, it means that it was visible to students,” he said. “Any violation that is significant enough to change votes should also be significant enough to be caught.”

Additionally, despite the proposal’s passage and the candidates’ agreement to adhere to it, little was discussed regarding expenses already incurred for the campaign. Because many candidates had already begun organizing before the resolution was passed, there is no way to ensure that current candidates had not already surpassed the limitations. However, Oliphant emphasized that the reform was not only a restriction on personal spending but also a reflection of all the candidates’ commitment to increased restraint.

“Even though [campaigning] already started, bringing the resolution forward still speaks to the fact that we don’t want the atmosphere to be negative, overly competitive, or present unfair economic barriers for candidates,” she said.

According to Guilmette, this year’s election will work as a test run to see where the strengths and weaknesses of the reform are, and to determine whether changes are needed before future elections. The proposal also stipulates that beginning next year, candidates will be required to make an Elections Coordinator aware of their intention to run, who will in turn announce the candidacies one month prior to the election, at which point candidates will be allowed to begin campaigning.

Nevertheless, proponents believe the campaign reforms will constructively affect this semester’s election as well as those in the future.

“I think we’re definitely going to see a positive impact,” Ali said. “There were some concerns that decreasing the availability of funds one can use would stifle creativity. I think it will do the opposite. Elections in the future will be more about ideas than simply empty campaigning, and there will be room for proposals and platforms to take the spotlight instead of gifts.”