9th Circuit Case Allows Student Government Campaign Spending Limits

In the case, Flint v. Dennison, Aaron Flint was a student at the University of Montana-Missoula and twice-ran for an Associated Students of the University of Montana (ASUM) Senate seat.  For a number of years, ASUM’s Constitution and Bylaws have placed a number of restrictions on campaigning, including a $100 limit on campaign spending by a candidate.  Flint violated this limit in both campaigns and was denied his seat after winning the second campaign.  He then sued the University, arguing that the campaign spending limits were an unconstitutional limit on his first amendment right to free speech. 

Flint argued that like the limits on campaign spending in federal elections struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo; campaign spending limits for a university student government are too great a limit to free speech.  Theuniversity argued that the restrictions were essentially an academic decision, and that the courts should defer to the university’s judgment.  The Ninth Circuit rejected both arguments, instead determining that the ASUM election process was a limited public forum set up at least in part for its educational value to students and that the regulations were reasonable to make sure the election achieved that purpose and were viewpoint neutral. 

Though Flint’s attorney, James Madison Center for Free Speech attorney James Bop Jr. (the James Madison Center is an ardent opponent of campaign finance regulations), has expressed concern that the decision could allow universities far more ability to restrict student speech than in the past, his concerns seem to be unfounded.  The Ninth Circuit was careful in its ruling to be clear that even when a university creates a limited public forum—such as the student government election—it cannot restrict the viewpoint of the students speaking.  While
advocates of student government power on campus will likely be troubled by the ruling—the Ninth Circuit rejected Flint’s arguments largely because it sees student governments as different from “real world” governments—and opponents of campaign finance regulation may be concerned for its implications in thatdebate, the case appears to present nothing new for free speech on campus. 

That said, Flint and his attorney have promised to appeal the case to the full Ninth Circuit.  We will continue to follow it closely in case further litigation impacts broader campus speech concerns.