How Did the UC Candidates Spend Their Money?

Four tickets vying to serve as next year’s Undergraduate Council president and vice president spent a total of $649.52 over the course of the UC’s 10-day campaign.
By Brian P. Yu

This year's four UC tickets.
This year's four UC tickets.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton weren’t the only candidates pouring money into their presidential campaigns this year.

Four tickets vying to serve as next year’s Undergraduate Council president and vice president spent a total of $649.52 over the course of the UC’s 10-day campaign, according to expenditure reports submitted by the candidates to UC Election Commission Chair Matthew C. Estes ’18.

This year's four tickets during the Crimson Crossfire debate
This year's four tickets during the Crimson Crossfire debate By Helen Y. Wu

For this year’s UC campaign, the majority of funds were spent on printing posters and letters, hosting websites, and boosting Facebook posts.

Four tickets ran for the UC presidency and vice presidency this year: Scott Ely ’18 and Evan M. Bonsall ’19, Eduardo A. Gonzalez ’18 and Alex Popovski ’19, Yasmin Z. Sachee ’18 and Cameron K. Khansarinia ’18, and Grant S. Solomon ’18 and Alexander T. Moore ’18. Sachee and Khansarinia ultimately won the election, and were sworn in as the UC’s new leaders earlier this week.

This year, each ticket was allowed spend up to $200 on the campaign, according to UC Election Commission rules. Candidates could be reimbursed for their expenses up to the $200 limit, if they submitted receipts to this year’s UC treasurer, Samarth Gupta ’18.

Each ticket other than Solomon and Moore’s spent more than $160 of their allotted $200 spending cap. Solomon and Moore—the only ticket to feature candidates who had not previously served on the Council—spent just $89 on their campaign.


Sachee and Khansarinia’s campaign spent significantly less than Ely and Bonsall or Gonzalez and Moore on printing costs, and also were the only candidates to advertise themselves on Snapchat.

Their ticket spent $54.23 on two different Snapchat filters that appeared in various locations on campus—including Annenberg, Lamont Library, and several upperclassman Houses and freshman dorms—during the campaign. Solomon and Moore used Twitter as a campaign platform as well, though they did not spend any campaign funds on the social networking site.

Printing—for posters or paper messages delivered to dorm rooms—was the largest spending category across the campaign, accounting for 29.6 percent of total expenditures. Candidates spent a total of $192.50 on printing costs. Solomon and Moore were the only ticket not to spend campaign money on printing.


Websites accounted for the next largest spending category, with $104.80 spent across all campaigns. All four tickets had websites during the campaign advertising their platforms, and they also maintained Facebook pages.

Three campaigns—all but Ely and Bonsall’s—spent funds on boosting advertisements of their tickets on Facebook. Facebook post boosting allows a page’s posts to appear higher in users’ news feeds, helping the post to reach a wider audience.

Combined, the three tickets spent $104 to fund Facebook post boosting.


Solomon and Moore spent $52 on Facebook post boosting, accounting for 59 percent of their ticket’s total expenses. Meanwhile, Gonzalez and Popovski’s ticket and Sachee and Khansarinia’s ticket each spent just under 15 percent of their total expenses on Facebook post boosting—Gonzalez and Popovski spent $28 on Facebook, while Sachee and Khansarinia spent $24.

Candidates also spent campaign funds on envelopes, posters, puzzle pieces, stickers, and tape.

Tags
CollegeUndergraduate CouncilStudent GroupsStudent LifeCollege FinanceCollege LifeCollege News
: