To the U.S. Supreme Court?
Former ASUM President Suing UM Over Free Speech Violations
By Greg Lemon, 11-08-07
Aaron Flint, former president of the Associated Students of the University of Montana, is in a legal battle with the University over his First Amendment rights, and the case may come before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Flint is suing the University over their $100 cap on campaign spending for ASUM offices. In 2004, while Flint was running for ASUM senate, he spent $214.69 on his campaign. The money spent above his limit was for campaign posters and pizza. After Flint won a senate seat, his votes were thrown out by the ASUM senate because he violated the University rule.
Flint sued the UM and lost a District Court decision, and a subsequent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision. The Montana Kaimin reported that the 9th Circuit Court decision said: “While ASUM undoubtedly has an impact on students at the University and has certain powers to distribute funds among student groups, it simply does not follow that ASUM is akin to a political government or that ASUM is the equivalent of a congressional race.”
The case gained national attention late last month when Washington Post columnist, George Will, took up Flint’s cause. In a column published Oct. 24, Will said UM had made a “mess” by regulating political speech.
Restrictions on freedoms, and especially freedoms as fundamental as those of the First Amendment, require serious justifications. So the question is: To what pressing problem did the university’s $100 limit respond? Or is it merely another manifestation of the regnant liberalism common on most campuses—the itch to boss people around?
According to the Kaimin, Flint argues that his freedom of speech was violated by the arbitrary spending limit, which as ASUM president he had tried to remove. While the 9th Circuit Court ruling maintains the ASUM is a faux government body meant for education, Flint and his pro-bono lawyer, James Bopp, who is representing Flint through the James Madison Center for Free Speech, disagree.
“They govern policies that affect the lives of students,” Bopp told the Kaimin. “This is not a debating society. There is a debating society—they do not distribute public funds.”
The argument for the spending limit is that it keeps the process open to all students, not just the wealthy few who could overwhelm opposition if the limit wasn’t in place.
But Will maintains the UM is robbing students of the real experience of campaigns: “The university is preventing students from learning such essential civic skills as how to raise and allocate political money for advertising and organizing.”
Emma Schmautz, in a column for the Kaimin agrees: “Like it or not, campaign money is an essential element in today’s political races. If UM students want to gain real experience as politicians, learning how to run an effective campaign, raise donation money, manage campaign spending and compete against other candidates who have more money is paramount.”
The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t decided whether or not to hear the case.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Believe me... if the tables were turned and this issue belonged to you and your ilk, you would be screaming louder than anyone!
Since when, does the issues of free speech belong only to the liberals?
Might not be such a bad thing because it would force candidates to actually engage students, rather than simply wallpaper the campus with posters. On the other hand, it'd probably give an automatic advantage to candidates in the Greek system, etc... Where there'd be instantaneous access to small donors. Suppose that's a lot like the real political world though too.
for groups and organizations, to support or oppose a student
candidate with NO limits on what they can spend
or how many walls they can "paper" without regard
for engaging students???
It also must be kept in mind that ASUM isn't spending taxpayers dollars, they are allocating student activity fees... So why do I want the MT Mining Assoc. or some similar group deciding which student groups and clubs get my activity fee?
So, Nick.... my question again, is why is it fair for those groups to have NO limits and candidates to have limits???
Your previous explanation does not address this fundamental and important question!
Courteously, Dan
Regardless, my original statement was that I don't believe Aaron Flint's attempt to dress up his lawsuit in the clothes of "free speech." On the other hand, I do believe that ASUM needs to clean up their process, and there are mechanisms for doing this that don't require Montana taxpayers to foot bills for frivolous lawsuits.
There would be no talk of reform on campus today, if it weren't for this lawsuit.
Do you think that the Kaimin or the Missoulian would even be talking about this, let alone agreeing with Aaron's side in this suit, if it didn't have validity.
Again, in my first statement, you & the groups you are affilliated with, lilke "Forward Montana" would be the first to scream and scream loud, if this situation were reversed and you were the one's being denied your free speech.
And no matter how you try to redo this issue... it is and always will be about "Free Speech"! Liberal or Conservative, does not matter... and both you and your group should be doing your best to defend this issue and it's message, even if you don't like the messenger!