Molly Hogan is the Student Association’s vice president for judicial and legislative affairs.

I am writing in response to “Why it’s best to leave money out of student elections,” by Kinjo Kiema (online, Feb 12).

Each year during the Student Association election season, questions about campaign finances arise. Why are candidates allowed to spend up to $1,000 to run for a student government position? Doesn’t this preclude certain students, who can’t afford to spend that much, from running? At first glance, the $1,000 limit seems like a lot – and it is – but looking a bit deeper into some other rules associated with them helps put the limits in context.

The SA Senate sets the spending limits for SA elections. With a simple majority vote, these limits could be raised or lowered. The $1,000 spending limit for president and executive vice president was set several years ago by the Senate, and has been renewed in subsequent years.

But along with setting the spending limit, the Senate also agreed on other campaign rules. One of which, regarding the “fair market value” of campaign materials, may have the biggest impact on elections.

During elections, candidates are required to report to the Joint Elections Committee the “fair market value” of anything they use in their campaign. For instance, if my uncle owns a t-shirt company, he might sell me t-shirts for $5 each even though the market value might be $10 each.

But because as a candidate I need to report the “fair market value” of all items, I have to disclose that I spent as much money as someone whose uncle doesn’t own a t-shirt company – a reality that often leads candidates to report more spending than what actually came out of their bank account.

This means that sometimes, candidates spend a lower amount on their campaigns than is actually reported in financial forms (and, in most cases, The Hatchet).

The JEC takes its responsibility of checking financial expenditures very seriously, ensuring a fair election for all candidates and serving as a check on election spending.

Discounts or not, candidates have won elections by spending less than their opponents. Kostas Skordalos, this year’s executive vice president, used only $419 of his allotted $1000 – significantly less than his losing opponent. Anyone who has participated in SA elections will tell you that spending a lot of money is just one of many different ways to gain an edge.

Having rules about how much money candidates can spend might seem strangely unnecessary in student elections. But the alternative may be even worse. Without putting limits on how candidates can spend money, there would inevitably be people who spend exorbitant amounts of money on outlandish items, winning votes with clout and personal resources rather than substance and the confidence of the student body. Campaign spending rules – even ones with a $1,000 spending limit – are a necessary evil to ensure a more even playing field in elections.

With elections happening once again on Feb. 19 and 20, it’s important to keep the discussion about campaign finances in mind, but also to keep it in context. And if, after these elections, members of the student body still feel strongly that these spending limits aren’t right for the SA, they should remember that they aren’t set in stone, and the SA members whom they just elected have the ability to change them.