RE: On the Question of Legal Restrictions Versus 'Political' Fundraising on Campus

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view
Valero, Jose A. (VALEROJA@uwec.edu)
Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:27:31 -0500



From: "Valero, Jose A." <VALEROJA@uwec.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:27:31 -0500
Subject: RE: On the Question of Legal Restrictions Versus 'Political' Fundraising on Campus
Message-ID: <E3F0E607B3CF71418CE725F002B5F604418395315D@CHERRYPEPSI.uwec.edu>

Bob, you can access the Statutes by chapters and sections at http://www.leg is.state.wi.us/RSB/STATS.HTML. All of chapter 11 deals specifically with c ampaign financing, so the two paragraphs that Karen sent you would seem to deal exclusively with such. Section 11.36, where the two paragraphs appear,
 is titled "Political solicitation involving public officials and employees
 restricted." It seems to me that "political subdivision" refers in the two
 paragraphs to counties, cities, etc. (political subdivisions of the state)
.

Saludos,

Jose Valero
________________________________________ From: sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu [sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu] On Behalf Of Nowlan, Bob [RANOWLAN@uwec.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:02 PM To: sfpj@listserve.uwec.edu Subject: RE: On the Question of Legal Restrictions Versus 'Political' Fundr aising on Campus

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



New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view
This archive was generated on Thu Sep 04 2008 - 23:27:34 Central Daylight Time