Michael DeBiase ENC 1102H Rios 11/25/2012

University Election Reform: Whos at Stake?

Introduction
There are a lot of factors that go into making a major policy change at a university, especially when that university is one of the largest in the country. The UCF Student Government Association election process needs reformation. The current campaign policies do not require a contribution statement to be submitted and also allow for unlimited spending, and I believe this is extremely unfair. I think it is unfair for both the candidates running for office as well as the students whose votes determine the winner of the race. The candidates are not provided equal opportunities to win elections if one candidate is able to spend more than the other. The current rules also deteriorate the integrity of the elections by allowing one contender to have more exposure to the voters than the other. This issue really needs to be addressed by all of the stakeholders that take interest in the subject. All of the major groups that are, or could be, involved with the reform process are discussed below. Each groups ability and willingness to make an impact on the situation is analyzed as well.

DeBiase 2

Stakeholders
Subjects SGA candidates that lost an election Student organizations or clubs that rely on funding from the SGA budget Players Voting UCF student who care about campaign reform. Current/incumbent SGA Senate members

Crowd Non-voting UCF students People that dont attend UCF nor care about SGA elections

Context Setters Voting UCF students that dont care about campaign reform President John Hitt

DeBiase 3 Players The first group of players in my project would be the UCF students who are voting in SGA elections and also care about reforming campaign funding rules. These constituents have the power to determine whether or not campaign financing in campus-wide elections is reformed. If there is enough interest in reforming the current set of rules and standards, and there is a sponsor of such reformation within the SGA, then the legislation will appear on the ballot in the general election for students to vote on. Therefore students ultimately hold a share of the most power in potentially altering the foundation of SGA elections. Besides by voting, students can also influence election reformation by actively recruiting and influencing their fellow UCF peers to adopt their same beliefs regarding election policies. The other group that falls under the category of player is all current members of the UCF Student Government Association and any incumbent running for reelection. These student representatives have a huge stake in campaign reform. All of them should have at least some interest in the issue because one way or another they all used campaign funds to get themselves voted into office. I believe they all have a strong opinion on the subject of campaign funding because campaign contributions either helped them capture the majority vote, or it helped their opponent to narrow their margin of victory. Either way, all of the current SGA members certainly have interest in reforming or preserving the current set of rules and regulations. There are three types of thinking among SGA members. The first, and least interested, group is the student officials who really do not care about campaign reform and its effects on future elections. This group is more concerned with other issues at hand. The

DeBiase 4 second thought process belongs to those that want to put an end to undisclosed spending amounts and put a cap on direct campaign spending. These are the SGA members that want an even playing field for all future candidates. The races that these members won may have been closer than they would have been if new policies were in play, giving them more incentive to stop the unlimited campaign spending in order to secure a successful reelection campaign. The last group of SGA members is those that want the rules to remain unchanged because the current rules allowed them to run larger campaigns and secure more votes. These members like the relaxed spending rules and use it to their advantage to win the votes of students that would otherwise have been undecided. Subjects The subjects of my project would include the SGA candidates that lost an election and the clubs and organizations around campus that rely on the funding from the SGA budget to operate. The past candidates that lost their election are interested in reformation talks because they could have had a better shot at victory had the funding for campaigns been limited or fully disclosed. The fact that one candidate can grossly outspend his opponent in a race really deteriorates the integrity of the election altogether. The losing candidate may have had a more favorable platform, but still lost simply because the winning candidate spent more to incentivize voting for their ticket. The sort of practice I am referring to is known as pizza politics. The term comes from a long history of SGA candidates spending unknown amounts of money on pizza or food trucks that provide hundreds of students free food only if they vote for a certain candidate (Wolkenfield 1). In the past, losing parties have held grudges against those who incorporate pizza politics into

DeBiase 5 their campaigns because the accused party has recruited voters who do not actually know what they are voting for, but simply want a free slice of pizza or a coupon to Wackadoos. The aforementioned losers are definitely interested in the topic but have very little power in changing the way things are. They did not win the seat in the election; they do not get to propose reforms in Senate meetings. The various clubs and organizations at UCF also have a stake in the reforming of campaign policies. These groups rely on the 18 million dollar budget granted to the SGA every year (UCF 3). Most groups receive at least some sort of funding, but it really is up to the Senate members to collaborate with the leaders of these organizations to determine where a large bulk of the budget gets allocated. Corporations, interest groups, charities, small businesses, workers, women rights activists, large businesses, and many other groups of people all rely on certain congressional candidates or presidential candidates to attain seats in office. They do so because it is in their best interest to have certain politicians in office as opposed to others. For example, corporations may hope for a president who will loosen corporate tax laws, and Democrats may wish for a victorious campaign by a liberal politician running for state representative. The same reasoning holds true for on-campus organizations. SGA presidential candidates run on opposing platforms and subsequently attract different groups of supporters. In the 2012 SGA presidential election, Cortez Whatley ran on the platform of extending the Rec and Wellness Centers hours of operation to be 24 hours a day during the week. Certainly this brought support from UCF athletic organizations as well as gym rats, but it also brought scrutiny from other groups that felt, in their eyes, the money to be used for running the gym all day and night could have been used for something more productive or beneficial to their particular

DeBiase 6 organization (Cortez). The two groups of subjects have a high interest in the subject but relatively little power over the final outcome. Context Setters My project contains two sets of context setters. The first is the UCF students who vote in the general university elections but do not care one way or another about campaign reform. The second is University President John Hitt, who has just entered his 20th year at the helm of one of the largest universities in the nation. First I will talk about the voters. These are the students who choose to vote in SGA elections but do not care about the outcome of campaign reforms. Rule changes within school elections would not directly affect this group of people one way or another, but these students do have the power to influence the final verdict in the issue at hand. It is understood that this group of students is not concerned with either proposing or opposing rules changes that would put a cap on campaign spending and also make it completely transparent, but they should be. If these students are voting in the first place, then it means they care about who is representing them in office. Expressing no interest in reforming the campaign policies shows that these students do not understand just how much the rule changes could affect election results. There could be an election in which the candidate that someone wants to win ends up losing by a slim margin simply because his or her opponent committed more money to influencing passersby with free pizza. Of course the other scenario is possible too where the favored candidate wins because he or she used similar tactics to woo student voters. This uncertainty can be eliminated entirely if only there was a spending limit for campaigns, thus leveling the playing field for all candidates involved.

DeBiase 7 The other context setter in my project is President of the university John Hitt. Hitt has been the leader at UCF for two decades now and definitely has the last word when it comes to rule changes. He has the power to influence the SGA and is the one who gives the final approval to the budget each year. He is a context setter though, and not a player, because he is not exactly concerned with the situation at hand. Hitt is the president of one of the largest universities and has several other responsibilities to preoccupy himself with, many of which are more important to the university than SGA election results. Maybe president Hitt would become more concerned if there were candidates running in SGA elections that opposed some principle that he stands for. Maybe, for example, a group of students that oppose president Hitts contract extension and salary increase decide to run for office. This group of students may not have as much support or attention from voters, but they are willing to spend more money. In this case president Hitt becomes directly affected by the way the students campaigns can spend unlimited amounts of money, so he may decide to implement new rules to prevent this from happening and the students from winning (Anderson 1). This is all speculative of course, but it is certainly a possibility. Both the students that do not consider campaign reforms as well as John Hitt have the power to change the way university campaigns are funded, but neither have enough interest to fully invest their time into the issue. Crowd The crowd consists of non-voting UCF students and people who do not attend UCF nor care at all about the SGA elections that happen there. Both of these groups have no reason to concern themselves with policies about on-campus elections. The Student Government does not affect people who are not enrolled at the university, so there is no

DeBiase 8 reason for these people to be interested in who is spending more than whom in the elections. The only scenario that involves people outside the university showing interest in the changing of campaign rules would be the owners of businesses that receive funds directly from candidates and in return make contributions. The earlier mentioned pizza politics comes into play here. For example, the owner of a pizza parlor that usually supplies a certain candidate pizza for his or her campaign in return for money from the campaign fund but is no longer contracted due to reformed spending rules, is at a loss that comes directly from the decision to change the election rules. Still, if the spending rules are changed, it is only one customer that the pizza parlor owner would be losing, so it really does not affect him that much. Neither group in the crowd holds any significant power over the current circumstances. There is nothing that people from outside the university can do to change the way campus elections are operated. Also, the UCF students cannot change a thing, that is unless they decide to change their minds and actually participate in the yearly elections. In that case, they would be effectively moved from the bottom of the chain of power to the top, where they would accompany their voting student counterparts and have the ability to vote on proposed legislation. But for now the non-voters have no say in whether the rulebook is altered or preserved. In the end both the non-voters and people that do not attend the university are non-factors in the equation of campaign spending reform.

DeBiase 9

Conclusion
With such a low voter turnout each year in the University of Central Florida elections, every vote counts. Cortez Whatley won the SGA presidential election in 2012 by a mere 7.5%. With only 12,000 students turning out to vote, his margin of victory was only 1.9% of the entire eligible student population (Goldberg 1). To put this into perspective, a single vote cast in the United States presidential election in 2008 counted for only .00000004% of the entire eligible voting age population. In contrast, a single vote in the 2012 UCF SGA presidential election counted for .01%. What this means is that a single vote in the university election has 250,000 times more power than a vote in the national election. A study about the affects of campaign spending on the results of elections found that spending more money increases the chance of a victory. It states that, [campaign] spending does appear to have a significant positive effect on the likelihood of winning (Jacobson 202). So yes, the affects of spending during campaigns really can alter the results of an election, especially with such a low number of voters participating in each election cycle. The University of Central Florida can truly benefit from a change in its campaign funding rules. There are several stakeholders at play that have varied amounts of power and influence over the matter at hand. Although some of the stakeholders have a sufficient amount of power, enough to bring change to the campaign trail, only the players display enough interest and concern for the integrity of the elections to take charge and really make a difference. If there is going to be a change made in the future, then either the members of the SGA or the student voters themselves need to step up and voice their opinions.

DeBiase 10

Questions to be used in interview

How can new legislation be introduced in Senate meetings? What is the process for getting such legislation on the ballot in the general elections? Can the Senate bypass a general vote and instead vote on and pass or decline legislation in-house? Other universities have spending caps and contribution statements in affect in their campaigns. What are your thoughts on UCF not having such policies? Has the issue of campaign spending reformation ever been brought up in Senate meetings? What sort of impact would campaign reforms have in SGA elections? Are you a proponent or an opponent of such policy reform? What sort of power does the SGA have over delegating where budget funds are allocated among student groups and on-campus organizations?

DeBiase 11

Annotated Bibliography
Anderson, Megan. UCF Board Approves John Hitts $26,500 Pay Raise. Orlando Business Journal. 16 Nov 2012. Web. 17 Nov 2012. This article primarily talks about the pay increase that President Hitt received this past year, but it also touches on the amount of executive power Hitt has over budget distributions. I used this information to characterize President Hitt as a context setter in my project. Cortez and Rachel. University of Central Florida Student Government Association. 2012. Web. 25 Oct 2012. This is the official website for the presidential and vice presidential ticket for Cortez Whatley and Rachel Brill. The website outlines their entire platform as well as groups that support their campaign. I gathered a lot of information from here that was included in the subjects portion of my stakeholder analysis. Feingold, Russ. Interview by Sarah Green. How Campaign Finance Reform Could Help Business. Harvard Business Review. 6 Sept. 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2012 Harvard Business Reviews Sarah Green interviews Russ Feingold, former Senator of Wisconsin and founder of Progressives United. Senator Feingold discusses the implications that the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling has had and will continue to have on American politics as long as indirect campaign funding is legally allowed to be a part of political races. This relates directly to my project because unlimited spending in campaigns on the national level is essentially a magnified version of the unlimited spending that is possible in UCF Student Government campaigns. Florida State University. Student Government Association Elections Commission. Violations in Spring 2012 FSU SGA elections. 13 Feb. 2012. SGA Election Commissions Hearing. Tallahassee. 2012. Web. This is a hearing before the Florida State University SGA Election Commission where a candidate is punished for violating the Election Code during the Spring 2012 presidential election. Reuben Stokes, the guilty party, was forced to resign from his newly appointed position as president of SGA for failing to file a contribution statement as well as a bank statement and itemized list of expenses used during his campaign. This shows how implementing and enforcing new rules could weed out dishonest candidates from the Universitys political sphere. Goldberg, Wes. Cortez Whatley, Rachel Brill Win 2012 SGA Presidential Election. Central Florida Future: Student Newspaper at UCF Since 1968. 28 March 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2012. http://www.centralfloridafuture.com/news/ This article in the Central Florida Future, a student newspaper at UCF, recaps the SGA presidential race and subsequent victory by Cortez Whatley. The article touches on voter turnout as well as specific numerical results of the election. Jacobson, Gary C. Measuring Campaign Spending Effects in U.S. House Elections. Ann Arbor:

DeBiase 12 The University of Michigan Press, 2006. Print. I used a lot of information from this publication to explain how much elections are affected by campaign spending. The main topic studied was the United States House elections, but the author does relate it to smaller scale elections as well. University of Central Florida, Senate, The 2012-2013 Activity & Service Fee Budget Bill, Forty-Fourth Student Body Senate. Orlando, 2012. Web. https://www.asf.ucf.edu/financial/budgets/12-13/ASF12-13Budget.pdf This is the University of Central Florida SGA budget which comes from the Activity and Service Fee that each student is required to pay for each credit our they enroll in. The budget give a complete breakdown of where the SGA plans on allocating the money and how much is to be used for student organizations, university agencies and departments, and the SGA itself. This document is important because it illustrates just how much monetary power the elected officials in the SGA actually have. University of South Florida Student Government Elections Rules Commission. Rules of Procedures. 2012. Google Document. This document details the policies and procedures that candidates and their campaign members must adhere to when running for office in a University of South Florida SGA election. The specific sections used outline the procedures for documenting campaign contributions and fully disclosing all amounts accepted from 1st and 3rd party contributors. This set of rules outlines what could potentially be implemented in UCF elections and the framework for campaign funding reformation at the university. Wolkenfeld, Kevin. Movement to End Pizza Politics in UCF SGA Elections Grows. Knight News: Revolutionizing News at UCF. 22 March 2011. Web. 20 Oct. 2012. http://knightnews.com/2011/03/ movement-to-end-pizza-politics-in-ucf-sga-elections-grows/ This article touches on the pizza politics that take place around campus during Senate elections. Pizza politics are methods of gaining support from student voters by incentivizing the voting process with promises of rewards such as food or vouchers. The article states that by eliminating these tactics from the campaigns, students will be forced to form opinions based on each candidates political platform. This is just one of the reasons such reform should take place in SGA elections.