A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the constitutionality of a $100 spending limit—arguing that it is reasonable given the educational goals of the Associated Students of the University of Montana (ASUM) election process. Though the case could have implications for the ongoing debate over campaign finance reform and does signal that the Ninth Circuit will view student governments in a different light than “real world” governments, it does not appear to have long-range implications for campus free speech—despite the plaintiff’s assertions.
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. The
university 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 that
debate, 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.
Flint-v.-Dennison.pdf