Look around campus.

There’s a distinct formula being followed by University Students’ Council residential contenders. Start with an army of bright T-shirt-clad campaigners, add a flashy YouTube video, toss in truckloads of lawn signs, and there you have it –– a typical campaign. And all of it is geared to garner your support.

Have you ever wondered how much it all costs?

The truth is, a lot, as today’s front-page article reveals –– and some of it potentially going above the allowed spending limits. It’s not surprising. One glance at the spectacle of modern USC campaigning alludes to the underlying dollars and cents. But what does this mean for students, and for the election process?

For one, it proves you can’t win based on your platform alone. In fact, the candidates’ actual ideas –– or absence of them –– are effectively drowned out by the sensory overload of their campaigns.

It also shows well-connected candidates have the upper hand, which typically equates to students with the most cash in their back pocket. Much of campaigning has to do with networking –– countless coffee dates, regular trips to the bar, attending every USC event –– and it all costs money.

On one hand, that’s just politics. It’s a good primer for the real world, for both the candidates and the rest of us. Who you know, so they say, is often more important than what you know.

But on the other hand, we’re too young to be that cynical. There has to be a way to hold candidates accountable and have USC elections be as fair as possible.

To start, the USC Chief Returning Officer needs to be diligent about inspecting campaign budgets with a fine-toothed comb. Some previous presidents have alluded to tighter policies in the past, so it’s not unfathomable to speak of more restrictions.

Maybe this also means a more accurate assessment of the fair value of labour involved in campaigns, where everything –– from time spent filming a cute video to the hours someone takes to build a website –– should be accounted for.

Unfortunately, it’s a slippery slope. Cracking down on candidates could stifle the creativity of their campaigns and reduce voter turnout –– not to mention it’s near impossible to trace every bit of spending. Where would you draw the line? Does pizza for your campaign team count? What about buying someone a drink at the bar while schmoozing?

So at the end of the day, it comes down to us –– the voters.

If we as a student body, as an electorate, are apathetic –– then this is what we get.

Candidates will appeal to the lowest common denominator, spending money on T-shirts sure to end up crumpled in a heap and signs that will litter campus once election season is over.

We’d rather our candidates spend their time figuring out what issues matter to students. And as students, it’s our job to tell them.