No shame for the Union: UCommons is a good idea — its campaign was not

The UCommons fee increase referendum made it on today’s ballot.

Although this board has endorsed the project itself, we have sincere problems with the way the Union conducted its campaign.

Student body president campaigns may use up to $250. The Union used more than $1,300.

SBP campaigns are prohibited from paying students to campaign. The Union paid student staff to gather signatures.

While the Student Code charges the Board of Elections with regulating and policing campaigns, it lacks more specific rules for fee referenda.

The Union took advantage of this gap and ran its campaign in a way that would clearly be in violation of the Student Code if student campaigns had done it.

While an institution has a right to advocate on its behalf, it’s the utter lack of proportionality that has upset the student body — and rightfully so.

With no funded and organized opposition, the marketplace of ideas that an election season is supposed to embody was markedly one-sided.

Student Congress had the opportunity to fund Students for a Democratic Society to launch a counter-campaign, but the motion failed.

Unfortunately, this left the student body with only one dominant perspective in what would be a major financial investment for the University.

Students deserve the right to information about both sides of an issue — especially when a University institution with a large budget is in control of one side of the debate.

Other controversial fees — such as the child care fee — have gone on the ballot without a juggernaut advertising campaign, yet the debate regarding the fee was robust to say the least.

The Union’s missteps have not only exposed a gaping regulatory hole in the Student Code, they’ve also obscured a perfectly good project with an uproar about campaigning strategy. We hope students will look to the idea and not the marketing.