Ever since the spring 2007 STUSU general election, the question has hung in the air: what is “campaigning?” What does it include? What does it exclude? Where does discretion come into the mix? Or plain old common sense?
In 2007, then-chief electoral officer Caitlin Mahoney kicked a presidential candidate out for distributing a letter to student societies with the signature “Candidate for President” before the nomination period was even closed.
Only after it was argued that this statement alone did not constitute campaigning did the full text come out, where the disqualified candidate solicited support and ideas from recipients.
Facebook was also contentious, as social media was essentially unknown before the 2006-2007 school year, and it was not directly covered in the STUSU’s by-laws.
Pitched battles were fought at the SRC meeting that week, but there is still no definition.
I argue it’s not difficult to make one.
The Random House dictionary says it’s “a systematic course of aggressive activities for some specific purpose,” in this case, getting elected to public office. The keywords here are systematic and specific. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo sets out what American politicians call the “Eight Magic Words,” the words you can’t use in issue advertisements because they influence voters.
They are: “vote for,” “elect,” “support,” “cast your ballot for,” “Smith for Congress,” “vote against,” “defeat,” and “reject,” and any variations thereupon.
The lines are fairly clear: if someone wants you to support a candidate, or defeat a candidate, and pursues that agenda systemically, they’re campaigning.
There’s a reason that the Canada Elections Act is 575 pages long: elections are fundamental to a democratic way of life, and they need to be regulated to ensure fairness.
The STUSU has only eight pages of regulations, and despite the SRC’s aversion to long, complex, dreary rules, maybe it’s time to do some research, read some legislation, review some court decisions, and make rules.
