Tuesday, January 19, 1999
Ruling allows student fees for lobbying
FUNDS: Campus groups may increase influence on local, national
levels
By Barbara Ortutay
Daily Bruin Staff
Reversing University of California policy, a Riverside judge
ruled last week to allow elected student governments to use
mandatory student fees for lobbying on the state and federal
levels.
The decision, which ruled in favor of the UC Riverside student
government and against the UC Board of Regents, states that the
regents misinterpreted a 1993 California Supreme Court decision,
Smith vs. UC Regents, when they placed an absolute ban on student
government lobbying.
U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer wrote that the ban,
"raises serious First Amendment and equal protection concerns."
Lyle Timmerman, Undergraduate Students Association Council
(USAC) administrative representative, said that whether the
university will appeal the decision is "not clear."
"I’m sure it will be discussed on a system-wide level," he said.
"Now that the policy is overturned, what policy replaces it is the
question."
Timmerman added that whether lobbying by student government is
appropriate or not depends on "the question at hand and the setting
in which it takes place."
"For example, while lobbying for clean water may concern us as
citizens, it is not the concern of student governments," he
said.
Despite the administration’s caution approaching the issue, USAC
officials and other student leaders see the ruling as a landmark
accomplishment concerning student lobbying and free speech.
"The interpretation of the Smith decision that took away our
right to lobby was a tremendous blow to campus free speech," said
Jon Lansang, national affairs director of the Associated Students
of UC Riverside, the group that filed the lawsuit against the
regents.
"This ruling opens us to do more lobbying on the national, state
and municipal levels," he added.
In addition to lifting the ban on student government lobbying,
the ruling also opens the doors for student governments to fund the
University of California Students Association’s (UCSA) lobbying
activities.
"UCSA was the number two Sacramento lobby group before (the
regents’ interpretation of the Smith decision)," said USAC External
Vice President Liz Geyer. "After Smith, (UCSA) started focusing on
lobbying the regents."
The basis of the Smith ruling, filed in 1979, was that the use
of mandatory student fees for political activity infringed on the
freedom of speech of dissenting students, and that this outweighed
the educational benefits of the groups’ lobbying activities.
The Smith decision required the regents to implement procedures
to make sure the rights of students are not infringed upon by the
use of their fees.
Thus, the regents banned the use of student fees for lobbying by
all officially recognized campus organizations.
Two years after the Smith decision resulted in a ban on the use
of student fees for lobbying, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in the
case of Rosenberger vs. Rectors, to allow student organizations,
but not student governments, to lobby.
In order to reconcile the two rulings, the university created
guidelines for student governments’ use of student fees for
political activity.
Under current guidelines, governments may fund political
activities but must provide a refund mechanism by which students
with dissenting opinions can get their share of the money back. In
addition, according to the guidelines, student governments are also
responsible for informing students of the use of their fees.
Lansang said that students should be informed of the use of
their fees through the democratic process, just as citizens are
informed of the use of their taxes.
The refund mechanism, according to some, does not adhere to the
democratic process of electing student officials to represent the
student body.
"It would be unforeseeable for citizens to opt out of taxes (the
way students can opt out of the use of their fees)," said Anthony
Samu, president of the United States Students Association. "We all
pay taxes, and the way we ensure that their use adheres to our
views is that we partake in voting."
Though state and district courts may rule on this issue in a
variety of ways, the question of the use of student fees may be
answered once and for all in October if the U.S. Supreme Court
decides to hear a Wisconsin case titled Southworth vs. Grebe. The
court will decide whether or not it will hear the case next
month.
In this lawsuit, a group of law students from the University of
Wisconsin sued that university’s board of regents in a case similar
to Smith vs. UC Regents. The case before the Supreme Court is the
Wisconsin regents’ appeal of the ruling in favor of the law
students.
If the court decides to hear the case, the ruling could set a
precedent for the funding of student organizations’ political
activities nationwide.
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]