From: "Nowlan, Bob" <RANOWLAN@uwec.edu> Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:02:27 -0500 Subject: RE: On the Question of Legal Restrictions Versus 'Political' Fundraising on Campus Message-ID: <7A17A445D0203848B157E8D70D1AC77E463E8DAB80@CHERRYPEPSI.uwec.edu>
And just a brief follow-up: "strictly bars all political fundraising from t
aking place in any state-owned building" appears to be Mike's and/or Karen'
s interpretation of the statute in question, and, yes, I do find the statut
e confusingly written, want to see the other immediately surrounding sectio
ns (but the ones I received were the ones that Mike and Karen decided were
the appropriately relevant ones), and imagine it could even be interpreted,
as is, as banning making any donation for any purpose inside of a state-ow
ned building, and that 'political groups' (or 'subdivisions') are among tho
se charged with the duty of putting a stop to that.
Bob
________________________________
From: Nowlan, Robert A.
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 7:34 PM
To: sfpj@listserve.uwec.edu
Subject: On the Question of Legal Restrictions Versus 'Political' Fundraisi
ng on Campus
Importance: High
Dear Friends, SFPJ:
I am writing to seek your help on what I think may turn out to be an im
portant matter, and one we may well want to be involved with.
Today I received an e-mail message from Karen Stuber, University Centers
and Programs Coordinator, as recommended by Mike Rindo, Executive Director
of University Communications, making me aware of the need to monitor poten
tial violations of state law that strictly bars all political fundraising f
rom taking place in any state-owned building. This message was in regard t
o Ralph Nader's visit to campus tomorrow, which is sponsored by the Progres
sive Student Association, for which I am faculty advisor. Evidently the Na
der campaign had already been advised of this restriction.
Now I have not been in any way involved in arranging or organizing this
event myself, and have not even planned to attend, as this has been entire
ly something put together by PSA students, but it seems to me that hosting
this kind of event falls well within the province of what PSA is all about.
And I also have been aware, and have advised students in the past, again
st fundraising on campus to support partisan campaigns for political office
. But I was--and am--troubled by the broad use of 'political' in this mess
age from Karen, and Mike, and I told them so. I suggested this could be hi
ghly problematic if we are not working with a precisely narrow and limited
definition of 'political' here as otherwise all kinds of 'fundraising' acti
vities by many campus organizations, departments, programs, and agencies--a
s well as the University itself--could be perceived as, and accused of, vio
lating the law. After all, as I told them, 'political'--at least within ma
ny academic and intellectual circles today, and for quite some time now--pl
us extending considerably beyond those circles too, can readily extend wide
ly, to refer to 'cooperations and contestations concerning access to and ex
ercise of social resources, powers, and capacities'. (And the idea of 'the
personal is political' as well as the ideas of 'the micropolitical' and 't
he politics of everyday life' have become fairly widely commonplace, and ev
en commonsensical, by this point in time.) So I asked if they, Karen and
Mike, would send me the exact statute in question because it is important t
hat we know precisely what we are barring--and what not--here, and on accou
nt of precisely what legal mandate to do so. Karen then sent me this:
Campaign Financing
Wisconsin Statutes 11.36, paragraphs 3 and 4
(3) Every person who has charge or control in a building, office or room o
ccupied for any purpose by this state, by any political subdivision thereof
or by the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority shall pr
ohibit the entry of any person into that building, office or room for the p
urpose of making or receiving a contribution.
(4) No person may enter or remain in any building, office or room occupied
for any purpose by this state, by any political subdivision thereof or by
the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority or send or dire
ct a letter of other notice thereto for the purpose of requesting or collec
ting a contribution.
Receiving this from Karen did not alleviate my concern, as what sense of 'p
olitical' is meant here remains, at least potentially, unclear. I suggeste
d to Karen, and Mike, that they need to consult legal counsel to clarify ho
w this is interpreted and in what sense the University is interpreting it--
and needs to interpret it. I also told them that I was seeking interpretat
ion through the head office of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wiscon
sin, and right now I'm currently awaiting word from our state legal directo
r on this matter. The problem remains--what, according to statute, counts
as 'political' and what not (and I suppose, as well, what counts as 'for th
e purpose of making or receiving a contribution'). Unless we, as UWEC, mak
e clear precisely how we interpret this restriction--and why so--a serious
potential exists for it to be applied, and especially mis-applied, inconsis
tently, even arbitrarily. And it is possible it could be extended, in conf
using ways, to encompass 'fundraising' activities of entities whose focus o
f concern in any way maintains clearly recognizable 'political' interests,
implications, or consequences. This could mean, for example, that all 'fun
draising' of any kind by all student religious organizations on campus (eve
n in the form of a bake sale) would be illegal (as would the 'fundraising'
activities of all student organizations focused on representing the particu
lar interests and concerns of specific ethnic, racial, national, gender, an
d sexual groups). And I am sure you can readily imagine many other kinds o
f 'fundraising' activities that could be deemed 'political' and therefore i
llegal beyond those examples I just gave, applying the same logic. In fac
t, if this was carried to its furthest logical conclusion, working with a b
road definition of 'political', it could create considerable, and definitel
y costly, chaos here at UWEC. As I myself interpret the statute, and imag
ine the intent of those who conceived it, the scope is limited toward only
barring fundraising for partisan political campaigns to elective office (an
d also, possibly as well, in relation to contested ballot initiatives). Bu
t we should not be left in the position where it is up to each of us to ind
ividually interpret what this use of 'political' means. And I also think t
hose sending out admonitions to various groups involved in seemingly overtl
y kinds of 'political' activity, or connected with and sponsoring of seemin
gly overtly 'political' events, should be very precise in explaining what t
hey mean.
So how can I use your help? Well, here are my thoughts. To begin with, we
are UWEC. So we can press that the University clarify in what precise sen
se it does, and does not, interpret 'political' in this statute. Yes, we c
an wait to hear from the University's legal counsel and from the ACLU in Mi
lwaukee, but we can also make sure we 'monitor' this situation because it m
aintains some reasons for potentially serious concern--as I alluded to earl
ier. And if we don't get clarification from our university's, or universit
y system's, legal counsel soon we should press to make sure that this happe
ns.
Finally, I am somewhat puzzled by receiving this message from Karen, and Mi
ke, today in the first place, since, as I was told from the beginning, the
Nader campaign had already been advised about the restrictions, and were aw
are of these, which they apparently were ready to comply with--so the need
to 'monitor' illegal political fundraising tomorrow at and around Nader's s
peech would seem to refer to that conducted by other organizations? for oth
er purposes? Who and what might those be? And, as I did relay to Karen an
d Mike, I hope that these reminders and admonitions are scrupulously sent o
ut to all candidates, and parties, as I do recall, while attending a rally
on upper campus four years ago where John Edwards spoke, while then the Vic
e-Presidential nominee for the Democratic Party, that at one point in his s
peech he asked those in the audience to use their cell phones to call in th
eir pledges of financial support for the Kerry-Edwards campaign. Now I hop
e that he, the Kerry-Edwards campaign, and the Democratic Party had been wa
rned beforehand about doing this kind of thing--and were admonished for him
doing it afterward. But I can't be sure about any of that of course.
Thanks for your interest--and help--with this matter.
Best,
Bob Nowlan