Regulation Confusion

The Daily D reports in today’s edition that Raj Koganti ’08, a candidate for SA President, was given a tier-one sanction by the Elections Planning and Advisory Committee. The sanction amounts to little more than a formal warning. Koganti was sanctioned for “illegal e-mail use by him and his supporters.” As the paper reports it:

On Saturday, Koganti sent out two mass campaign e-mails with suppressed recipient lists. Under EPAC rules, candidates are not permitted to send out e-mails to recipients whom they do not know, and are prohibited from suppressing recipient lists.

There is, however, some confusion as to the exact nature of the EPAC rules. If, as the Daily D, the candidates are not allowed to blitz “recipients whom they do not know,” then Koganti is far from the only candidate stepping over the line of fair play. Several candidates, while not suppressing their recipient lists, have sent out blitzes to students, unknown to themselves, asking the recipient for their vote. Here is one such example:

Date: 07 May 2007 20:16:07 -0400
From: Nova E. Robinson
Subject: Vote!
To: [redacted]

Hey –––––,

If you havenít [sic] voted for SA President yet, I would appreciate it if you would vote for me!

Iím [sic] running because I think that SA can be the voice of the students, but its current structure prevents it from doing so. It is time for change!

I can be your voice for change.


. Improve SA Efficiency
. Increase Academic Resources
. Include Community Voices
. Uphold Commitment to Greek System

Robinson is not the only candidate to have sent blitzes like this out. Why has their been no action from EPAC? The simplest answer (and probably the right one) is the Daily D‘s shoddy reporting. There may, in fact, be no rule against sending blitzes to people the candidate doesn’t know, just a rule against repressing recipient lists.