Questions raised by 'negative' stumping

The lack of a concrete definition of “negative campaigning” in the Student Code has led to controversy in this year’s student elections.

Student body president candidate Seke Ballard passed out critiques of his competitors’ platforms at forums last week, sparking debate and causing some to wonder if his actions constituted negative campaigning.

In October, Student Congress passed a bill to amend the Student Code to define negative campaigning, but Student Body President Matt Calabria vetoed it, citing unclear wording.

Needing a two-thirds majority vote in Congress to override the veto, the bill fell short by receiving 11 of 20 votes.

The bill would have defined negative campaigning as “an unsubstantiated, subjective and defamatory remark about another candidate or campaign worker.”

“It would be great if we could come up with a consensus of what negative campaigning is, but it’s hard to define,” said Seth Dearmin, candidate for student body president.

Board of Elections chairwoman Heather Sidden said that in cases of extreme slander, the perpetrator could be turned in to the Honor Court.

Though the elections board code does not formally define negative campaigning, Sidden said, she provided the candidates with her own definition.

“I think negative campaigning is making personal attacks or commenting on something not germane to the campaign,” she said.

She said she did not think Ballard’s actions constituted negative campaigning.

“He was just critiquing platforms,” Sidden said. “That’s pretty much what candidates do every day at forums and in the Pit.”

Student body president candidate Tom Jensen said he thought otherwise.

Although he said Ballard’s actions were not illegal because negative campaigning is not addressed in the code, Jensen said he thought Ballard’s actions were “morally wrong.”

“In general, it was negative,” he said. “In a good-faith campaign, we should present our ideas and our backgrounds instead of saying why you shouldn’t vote for the other person.”

Ballard said his actions were inaccurately judged, and he wanted people to judge the elections based on the quality of people’s platforms.

“(Elections) should be about critiquing platforms and intellectual discourse — making sure everyone is accountable for what we promise students,” he said, noting that he will continue to pass out the critiques.

Not all candidates viewed Ballard’s actions as negative campaigning.

“I have no problems with candidates critiquing other platforms,” said candidate Leigha Blackwell. “If you say you’re going to do something, you better make sure it’s feasible.”

Still, most candidates said they will not distribute critiques of others.

“The best thing is to really focus on yourself rather than other candidates,” said Bobby Whisnant Jr., a candidate for senior class president.

“You should let people know why they should choose you and not why they shouldn’t choose other people. It’s like winning by default.”

 

Contact the University Editor at udesk@unc.edu.