Relax Campaign E-mail Rules

Of all the tedious regulations governing the Undergraduate Council (UC) presidential election, the restrictions on electronic communications stand out for their inanity. Under rules issued by the Election Commission (EC), campaign personnel are forbidden from sending out unsolicited e-mails, e-mails to open lists, or e-mails to anyone with whom they lack a “reasonable familiarity or connection.” The utter impracticality of enforcing these rules in a meaningful and equitable way creates perverse incentives that undermine the integrity of campaigns. UC elections would be better off without these bans.

The rules, as they stand, encourage campaigns to misstate their campaign personnel rosters to the EC. Although an individual affiliated with a campaign or at the directive of candidates cannot send out unsolicited e-mails on the campaign’s behalf, individuals outside the official campaign apparatus can still do as they please. As such, candidates have an incentive to leave names off their campaign lists or simply deny association (otherwise unprovable) with unofficial campaign e-mailers.

It is surprising that far more violations do not take place, given the possibility for creative ways to violate the rules. Any candidate can, for instance, convince someone sufficiently separated from the campaign to create anonymous e-mail aliases from which to send campaign literature. Moreover, e-mail violations, unlike postering violations, are most likely to go unreported. Only the smallest slice of campus would notice a campaign violation in their inbox when they got one.

This week demonstrated just how slippery adhering to rules can be. The Petersen-Sundquist campaign amassed 305 points of campaign violations (based largely on e-mail violations) out of a possible 400 point limit. E-mails cannot be unsent, and requiring campaigns to take down posters as a penalty for unsolicited e-mails is not necessarily an equitable trade-off. It’s not that we think the action of sending out e-mails is particularly egregious, but if breaking the rules means winning an edge, then rules need to be reconsidered.

Those who argue that UC elections without these bans would become total electronic free-for-alls are likely mistaken. We are convinced that as with other conduits for electronic advertising on this campus, e-mail flows regulate themselves. Members of a house open list, for example, would respond quickly and savagely should their list be overrun with irrelevant e-mails. Because tracking candidate e-mails and personnel lists is nearly impossible, we favor self-regulation through which those turned off by e-mails can voice their opposition through complaints to a campaign—or even through the ballot box. Failing retribution, there’s also the not so far-fetched possibility that some of these e-mails could serve the worthy function of informing the electorate and activating student interest in the UC.

We don’t like spam any more than anyone else. Frankly, we wouldn’t like it any better coming from a UC campaign than we would from a V!agra salesperson. But, alas, we are resigned to the fact that dealing with a little more spam and fewer rules would be a boon to the health and fairness of UC elections.