Letter to the Editor
Mo’ money, mo’ problems
Re: “Promotion is costly, price tag is justified” Feb. 3, 2010
To the editor:
In response to Mr. Singer’s claim that gimmicky promotions are simply the “price of democracy,” I have to say I whole-heartedly disagree. To address his point that cross-campus promotions are costly and difficult, I certainly concede.
However, when that promotion is in the hands of partisan representatives and the message is that the USC elections are about cheesy mascots and (misspelled) bullet points on neon paper, democracy is certainly not being served.
The promotion of the election as a whole by the Elections Committee makes sense. Were the USC to lower campaign spending limits and channel presidential refund monies into funding and promoting elections in a general sense, campaign over-spending would be easier to spot and there would be a more empowered non-partisan oversight body.
A level playing field with fewer barriers, including equal access to media outlets — such as the one hour tvWestern.ca spot offered to all candidates — would promote democracy and use more planning, not more money.
With Bylaw 2 under review, as a concerned student, member of campus media, and former USC presidential candidate, I would hope that the already financially strained USC will not heed Mr. Singer’s mo-money advice and instead focus on reigning in devaluing gimmicks and unfair (financial) advantages.
—Ashley Bushfield
Social Science IV
As a student, I don’t have a lot of time on my hands. I don’t have the luxury of perusing 6 well constructed platforms and comparing the merits. I need pitches. I need campaigns. Elections committee does a great job of promoting elections, but I need specific, packaged info, and they can’t do that, nor should they.
What I don’t want to see is students who want to run, but don’t have an elaborate network, crippled by reducing the amount they’re able to spend. Without the ability to create eye catching ‘gimmicks’, and engage the unengaged in innovative ways, candidates without pre-established extensive networks fall behind.
This means that a student who has to spend most of their academic career working to pay for rent instead of running a soph team or being involved in every play, charity and club on campus, has no chance. Obviously an oversimplification, as many sophs or club presidents work while in school, but it goes without saying that the hours I may spend working at starbucks are hours that won’t go towards student activities
Is that really what we want? A USC run only by the privileged few with the most free time? I don’t think so.