Doubts Linger Over Campaign Practices

Ever since Fentrice D. Driskell '01 and her running mate John A. Burton '01 swept the Undergraduate Council presidential and vice-presidential elections last week, the council has been abuzz with accusations of election infractions.

Some of these violations would have been serious enough to warrant the pair's disqualification from the race.

These accusations, notably, come not just from Driskell's opponents--many of whom refused to comment on the matter for this article--but also from a handful of other council members, including some who endorsed Driskell and worked on her campaign.

Driskell and Burton have been accused of both overspending their $100 limit and committing an ad-boardable offense by stuffing first-year mailboxes with their fliers.

The Election Commission (EC), which is responsible for enforcing these rules has also come under scrutiny, accused by a high-ranking council member of covering up a decision that should have resulted in Driskell and Burton's expulsion.

It's About Name Recognition

Almost no one, not even Driskell herself, expected her to win by a landslide of 1,215 votes--more than double the total of the second-place contender.

"I expected that there would be at least two clear frontrunners, and I felt like we were one of them," she said. "I expected first place and second place to be really close, though."

The victory seems to be the result of a very visible and creative campaign, aided by the pair's heavy postering, which brought them close to the EC's spending limit and got their name out to voters.

Now the EC seems unclear about whether the Driskell-Burton ticket actually exceeded this limit. This ambiguity and the EC's questionable response have fueled speculation on the council that the ticket should have been disqualified from the race.

According to rules posted on the EC Web site, spending more than $100 should immediately result in disqualification from the race. The only way a candidate can exonerate him or herself after exceeding the limit is if it was exceeded by the payment of penalty fines imposed by the EC.

For almost 24 hours after the election, four EC members said that Driskell and Burton had exceeded the spending limit.

But EC members say they were unaware of the actual wording of the rules. At first they said the campaign was allowed to return enough materials to bring them back under the $100 limit.

"The rules are pretty clear that two of the expellable offenses are overspending the campaign limit and any ad-boardable offense," said current council president Noah Z. Seton '00.

The day after the election results were released, under heavy interrogation from council members and other candidates, EC representative David L. Levy '00 changed his story.

Despite his previous claims, he said that Driskell and Burton were not over the spending limit. Rather, he said, all the EC members had been confused after a long and stressful night of tabulating election results.

Driskell and Burton could be redeemed, he said, not because they returned the goods that exceeded the limit, but because of the type of goods that would have brought them over.

The EC originally said the pair received too many "in-kind" donations--goods that a ticket receives for free but that still count towards its total expense limit. Driskell and Burton claimed, though, that these were actually things any candidate could have obtained and should not count toward their total spending.

After a day of saying otherwise, and after Driskell's landslide victory, the EC agreed with the candidates' interpretation of the rules.

Andre V. Moura '03, an EC member, said Levy's change in explanation for the decision was an attempt to make the commission's desired outcome fit the facts at hand.

"Basically, the thought was that [Driskell and Burton] should not be kicked off the campaign," Moura said.

The donations in question included leftover buttons that Burton retrieved from the office of the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters' Alliance (BGLTSA). The Driskell-Burton campaign covered the buttons with stickers and gave them to their supporters.

Lemonade that Driskell got from the Mather House kitchen and gave out in front of the Science Center was also suspect. The candidates did not report either donation.

Driskell and Burton said any of the other candidates could have gotten the buttons and lemonade for free as well so the items should not count towards their $100.

However, presidential candidate Sterling P.A. Darling '01 said he asked his dining hall for lemonade, and was refused.

Levy told The Crimson that the EC had decided in Driskell and Burton's favor over the buttons and the lemonade, but at least two EC members said this was not true.

"There was never a vote one way or the other," Moura said.

When Levy was approached with this accusation, he again changed his answer. He now agrees that the EC never made a decision regarding the lemonade.

"We never really decided on it," Levy said. "We were under the impression that returning things made it a moot point."

But just returning campaign materials still should not have exonerated Driskell and Burton. They would have violated election rules that result in expulsion, according to the EC's Web site.

Robert L. Chan '02, the EC representative that Levy said would know the specifics of Driskell and Burton's finances, alternated Saturday between declaring that he "was sure [Driskell and Burton] didn't go over the spending limit" and saying "they may have overspent."

Exasperated, he finally said: "I don't exactly know what is going on myself."

Former council president Beth A. Stewart '00 accused the EC of having a Machiavellian instinct--deciding on a desired outcome, then fitting an explanation to it.

"It doesn't bother me if they say 'go for it, you have two weeks, it's a free for all, do whatever you can get away with,'" said Stewart, who endorsed Darling for president this year.

"I do have a problem if certain people are relying on the rules to be enforced, and then they aren't enforced," Stewart added.

Getting the Word Out

Throughout the election, Driskell and Burton have shown an uncanny ability to appeal directly to their voters.

At debates, Driskell and Burton supporters showed their unity by tying yellow bandannas around their heads. A mass of bobbing yellow heads identified the Driskell section of any debate audience.

"It seems to me that the strength of their campaign came from the ways that they were campaigning," said Driskell-Burton supporter Shai M. Sachs '01.

Of course, Driskell and Burton weren't the only candidates to try to reach out to voters. But they did have a unique way of doing so.

While most candidates stuck to basic 8.5" x 11" poster designs, Driskell and Burton convinced Tommy's House of Pizza to let them post up a large, 10-foot-wide poster urging students to vote for them.

And shortly before the end of the election, Driskell and Burton convinced the Harvard Yard Mail Center to put their campaign materials in every first-year mailbox.

Yet if Driskell and Burton ran a creative campaign, some council members say it was based on a creative interpretation of campaign rules.

Darling said he asked Dean of Freshmen Elizabeth Studley Nathans if he too could stuff the mailboxes. But she denied him permission, at which point he told her they had already been stuffed by Driskell and Burton.

"I have heard rumors that materials were 'stuffed' on behalf of another candidate but do not know whether that is in fact true; that candidate did not approach me for permission to access [the] boxes," Nathans wrote in an e-mail message.

Darling then cried foul. Darling supporter Kyle D. Hawkins '02 sent a letter to the EC on behalf of Darling and several other candidates protesting the fliers' placement in mailboxes.

If the EC found that stuffing the mailboxes was an ad-boardable offense, Driskell and Burton would have been disqualified from the race.

Burton responded to the complaint by saying that he got permission to stuff the mailboxes from an employee at Harvard Yard Mail Center, a distinction that satisfied the EC, but few council members.

Council member Ted A. Swasey '00, who did not endorse anyone in the presidential race, said that permission should properly come from the Freshman Dean's Office (FDO), and not a worker in the mail center.

"Frankly, it was pretty ridiculous," he wrote in an e-mail message. "It's against University rules to do something like that. Fentrice and John, who are both experienced campaigners, should have known better."

Even Driskell and Burton supporters found the pair's decision to stuff first-year mailboxes unsettling.

"I wish that John and Fentrice had spoken to the [FDO] before doing the mail drop," said David B. Orr '01, who endorsed the pair and worked on their campaign.

The EC decided that, because Burton had received permission from a mail-room worker, he had not committed an ad-boardable offense. Had they decided otherwise, the Driskell-Burton ticket would automatically have been kicked out of the campaign--and their sweeping victory would have been overturned.

"It's unfortunate," said Seton about the Driskell-Burton mail drop. "If they were able to reach all 1,600 freshmen via the mail like that, that might, in part, explain the large margin of victory they had."