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.