Calstuff
Don't mess this up!
-Kevin Deenihan,
Emeritus


Home
Archive
Extended

Help CalStuff!

Disclaimer: Calstuff and/or the opinions expressed are not affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley.
Recent Guest Posts
Tenants' Rights Week
by Jason Overman
Search

Powered by:
Contact

FaceBook CalStuff!
Allen L.
 About
 
 IM
Andy R.
 About
 
 IM
Ben N.
 About
 
 IM
Cooper N.

 About
 
 IM
Syndication
Site Feed (ATOM)
Comments Feed
Add to LJ Friends

Subscribe in NewsGator Online
Subscribe with Bloglines
Berkeley Blogs
CalJunket
With humor.
Cal Patriot Blog
Conservative Blog
UC Berkeley Livejournal
Discussion Forum
California Patriot Watch
Self Explanatory
Brad DeLong
Econ Prof
The Bird House
Cal Prof on everything
Cal Politik
Rants & Raves
Beetle Beat
Full Time Whiner
"Frat" Life
Cal "Frat" Boy
Cal Tzedek
Jewish Students Blog
Personal as Public
Soft Boiled Life
Hilariously Un-PC.
Cal Alumni/ Squelch Blogs
Kedstuff
Remember him?
I Fought the Law
Optimus Primed
Zembla
With Cuteness
Ne Quid Nimis
With Photography
Friday, October 03, 2003
# posted by Kevin @ 11:02 AM

The CRENOGate supporters have issued their latest legal defense, which adds new cases to the basic Wisconsin one. It relies on an extremely odd and tenuous interpretation of the concept of 'viewpoint neutrality,' as well as not addressing the crucial distinction between student groups and student governments. It also doesn't address the distinction between allowing political spending and requiring it. The Clam analyzes it here.

But lets assume for a minute that the legal argument is 100% correct and examine the consequences.

First off, there is no argument that campaign finance restrictions weren't violated. That would be important.

Second, even assuming that this spending is completely legal, it will require the ASUC suing the Regents to prove. The Administration has already scoffed at the legal argument and can sit all day blocking expenditures. Note that there has been no denial that the ASUC/GA violated campus regulations. They've more or less accepted it! Thus, the only way to push this forward is a lawsuit to prove that the regulations themselves are illegal!

Furthermore, lets say that any reasonable judge will find for the GA/ASUC on all counts. This requires that the judge be reasonable on all four of the possible exceptions the Administration can use-- that it wasn't viewpoint neutral, the student government is not a student group, we're not required to allow political speech, and you can't force us to spend money that would violate campaign finance rules. The Administration only has to win on one point-- or rather, any Judge will have to be so reasonable to find for the ASUC/GA FOUR TIMES. This also assumes that the Administration, losing, won't appeal to a higher level, where the ASUC/GA has to win four times again...

In sum, even assuming the GA/ASUC is legally correct, they're locked into a course that requires heavy legal expenditures and heavy bets against all odds in order to get any spending approved

I forgot that ASUC offices and phones were used for this campaign, which is another possible violation.

Anyway, even supporters of the ASUC/GA spending should take stock of their legal/political situation. It's a thin, thin reed! Back off now before it's too late...
Email This Post!

Home
Advertisements
Advertising Policy

Place an Ad on Calstuff



Get Firefox!

Cal Magazines
Heuristic Squelch
Humor Mag
California Patriot
Conservative
Hardboiled
Lefty/Asian mag.
Bezerk
Comics Mag
In Passing
Bloggish
Cal Newsites
Daily Californian
Student Newspaper
Daily Planet
City Newspaper
Berkeleyan
Faculty/Staff news
Newscenter
Administrative Announcements
Indybay
Hard Left News
East Bay Express
Alt-weekly
Cal Other
UC Rally Committee
Stand nineteen feet tall! Be united! Be tough! Be proud!
CyberBears
GO BEARS!
ASUC
Cal's Student government
One
Cal's Student Portal
Berkeley Bookswap
Good Deals

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com