The consequences of DSG Judiciary’s ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations are free to spend unlimited amounts of money in federal elections. The DSG Judiciary ruled in Bergmann, Robinette, Barrios, Gould, Catapano v. Duke Student Government that the Attorney General does not have the authority to move the campaign packet deadline without a vote of approval by the Election Commission.

The Supreme Court correctly decided its case because a strict reading of the Constitution, federal laws and the tax code implies that corporations are legal entities akin to people. Thus, corporations should not be discriminated against with arbitrary campaign contribution limits. This interpretation signals that spending money is akin to speech, and is protected by the First Amendment.

Likewise, the DSG Judiciary correctly decided its case because a strict reading of the DSG constitution does not explicitly grant the Attorney General the power to shift the election timeline under any circumstance, without the consent of the Election Commission.

The Supreme Court ruled incorrectly, however, in that its decision is an affront to democracy that may have unforeseen consequences. If spending money is recognized as protected speech and corporations may spend freely on federal campaigns, then a corporation’s voice will likely count for more than the average citizen’s voice in elections and, by extension, policy decisions.

Comparably, the DSG Judiciary ruled incorrectly in that its original decision voided the aspirations of 13 individuals and faulted them for seeking to participate in student government. The decision in no way considered the context of an election packet due date following a national championship victory, the minimal notice given to the student body of an upcoming election, and the reality that the DSG election itself was beyond uncompetitive.

Before anyone in the Senate, Judiciary or executive branch drafts another resolution, lodges another complaint, or makes another decision, please consider the broader implications for the already limited democracy that DSG is supposed to epitomize.

Andrew Schreiber

Senator, DSG Academic Affairs Committee