“It’s like drug use in sport — everyone’s doing it, and nobody wants to talk about it.”

So said former University Students’ Council president Chris Sinal about what’s been called the worst kept secret of the USC.

The issue? Presidential campaign spending limits.

Every year, candidates for the USC’s top position are given a firm spending limit — five cents per eligible voter. Most years this amount averages out to about $1,500 per candidate, with candidates being reimbursed by the USC if they receive a certain percentage of the vote.

But there’s a seldom noted part of the election bylaws that deals with spending limits. In the event a candidate intentionally misrepresents his or her campaign expenditures, they will be automatically disqualified from the race.

Does it happen often? According to Jane*, a campaign manager for a past candidate, spending limits are exceeded frequently, to the point where previous presidents may have broken these rules.

“It was definitely happening with my candidate,” she said. “If it looks like the candidate has the capability to go over budget then chances are they will.”

Jane revealed the practice tends to repeat itself.

“Most of these candidates have run other campaigns in the past, so they know where to get things cheap and how to lie,” she said, adding past presidents can also serve as an effective way to help candidates figure out loopholes.

John*, another campaign manager, wasn’t sure of the last time there was a president whose campaign ran “100 per cent by the rules.”

“I think campaigns start out with a mentality of staying under budget, and then they run out of bag tags,” John said. “At that point you ask ‘do we get it at InPrint? Or do we go to Staples because InPrint was going to take four days?’”

But things weren’t always this way.

“There were rumours about [over-spending],” Sinal said. “But the concerns never were more than innuendo.”

Sinal, who was USC president in 2002-2003, recalled a simpler campaign period.

“E-mail and websites were just taking off,” he noted. “The primary costs were materials: signs, shirts, rave cards. Also, signs were not allowed on university property.”

The True Cost of Campaigning

This has all changed in the last few election cycles, as new campaigns cannibalized ideas from previous successful ones. The growth of hill signs is one of the more visible changes made, but mascots and bag tags have also increased in popularity.

Andrew Beach, a presidential candidate in the 2009 election and campaign manager for Christian Mariyanayagam two years ago, listed many of the costs associated with a USC campaign.

“An atrium banner, T-shirts, giveaways, rave cards, bag tags, a hill sign, a website, a video […] and a lot of the time people aren’t realistic about how much things cost,” he said.

Former campaign strategist Jack* doesn’t think the current spending limit accurately reflects the cost of a modern campaign.

“These candidates have a very difficult task in presenting a message to tens of thousands of students,” he explained. “I think it’d be very difficult to get a message out within the current spending limits.”

But both Beach and his fellow former presidential candidate Ashley Bushfield disagree, citing the approximate $1,500 spending limit as being one that can go a long way if it’s spent carefully.

“Students may not buy into [the campaign] the same way if you use recycled or second-hand materials,” Beach said, “but it’s not about who has the most [stuff] — it’s about the medium you choose to get your message out.”

When the candidates dip into personal funds, some say it upsets the level playing field the election rules are supposed to create.

As it stands, candidates in the election have to provide a receipt for their purchases which the USC Elections Committee then reviews. But campaign managers through the years have worked out a plethora of possible loopholes, according to the former campaign managers interviewed for this story.

Sometimes it comes down to having multiple receipts and only handing in some, or lying about making signs or T-shirts.

One of the rules designed to prevent this practice is requiring candidates to print campaign materials at InPrint, but many teams often only print a select number of signs and posters before placing a bulk order elsewhere.

Another issue facing campaigns is the question of fair market value. Under the election bylaws, any work or donations candidates receive are supposed to be priced at a fair market value. But understanding of the issue is fuzzy at best.

“How do you bill for a video? Or website design? It often comes down to who has the friend who’s also a web designer,” remarked John.

Beach noted the majority of websites coming out often carry price tags of hundreds of dollars –– costs that eat into the bottom line of a supposedly tight campaign budget.

“I think everyone understands the level playing field idea,” John concluded. “The inherent problem is you never know who is actually playing by the rules.”

Bylaw 2 – The Elephant in the Room

Overall, USC elections are governed by a set of rules filed under the broad name of Bylaw 2, and it is the responsibility of the chief returning officer and the Elections Committee to ensure enforcement takes place.

Though the Elections Committee does investigate on their own accord, most frequently any complaints are brought to their attention by other campaign teams.

“This year we have a CRO who has been active,” John said about current chief returning officer Phil Sach. “Unfortunately, he can’t be everywhere at once.”

“It’s in the hands of the candidates to play fair with their finances,” Sach said. “We try to instill a sense of responsibility in them before the campaigning starts.” He also explained the USC is currently reviewing Bylaw 2, though any changes will not take effect until next election.

These actions aren’t enough to satisfy everyone, however.

“Why don’t we get a survey out there?” Bushfield asked. “Count the signs — they should be calling people out on their spending. Where is the non-partisan representation in all of this?”

“There’s an onus on the elections committee to investigate this sort of thing,” Sinal agreed.

“If the rules are there to be enforced then you have to investigate it no matter how inconvenient or disruptive it may be.”

*Name changed to protect identity