Lifting the Veil on Student Organization Funding

By: Sam Santavicca

“Show me the money!” is just as ubiquitous in Jerry Maguire as it is at a Student Bar Association Finance Committee hearing. These hearings, which I have participated in for two years, are exceedingly long, excruciatingly boring, and incredibly important.

  Every fall, each student organization treasurer is required to submit a budget pitch to the SBA treasurer. The treasurer then holds budget hearings where the Finance Committee asks the treasurers direct questions about their budgets and how they will help the law school. We then recommend a budget that must be ratified by the SBA Senate. During the ratification process, any senator or executive board member can move to alter any budget line item for any reason.

  Few organizations get exactly what they ask for. The SBA receives a limited amount of money from the main campus, and with the recent attacks on college campuses and the Department of Education, that amount of money is not getting any larger. My organization, The National Lawyers Guild, received about $3,000 less than we requested.

  Before the money is allocated, the SBA reserves about 10% of the total funds for itself. This money goes towards funding SBA activities like fronting the money for the SBA store, purchasing materials for the SBA Halloween party and JDO residency weekends, and supplementing the cost of Barrister’s Ball.

  The Finance Committee considers many factors when deciding how to allocate funds. The most important question is ‘where will this money do the most good?’ ‘Good’ in this case refers to the guidelines we follow that prioritize, in order: on campus engagement; networking and job opportunities in Northeast Ohio; bringing scholars and speakers to campus; and educational benefits on campus for as many students as possible.

  I am drafting this article instead of playing Battlefield 6 (or studying, but when has that ever helped) because there was a small funding concern this year. Specifically, the Federalist Society requested $5,000 to send five of their executive board members to Washington, D.C., for their national organization’s professional conference. They requested funds for airline tickets, meals, conference admission tickets, Uber rides, and hotel rooms (last year, the conference was held at the Ritz Carlton, where the cheapest room regularly exceeds $400 a night). The Finance Committee approved an initial $943 for the conference tickets only. It is committee policy to not fund flights, and the committee believed that the $4,057 that the Federalist Society requested but did not receive would be better allocated elsewhere.

  After the committee made their initial recommendation to the SBA senate, third-year senator and Finance Committee member Sean Yeats, who was the SBA treasurer last year, moved to reduce the $943 further to $0, reasoning that an expensive conference that only benefited five students was not an efficient use of funds. Further, the Federalist Society presented no plan to raise their own money for this event, which the SBA declined to fund last year. The Federalist Society did not fix the defects in their budget from last year and, in fact, removed all the events SBA funded last year from this year’s budget. The motion failed, but a subsequent motion to reduce the allocation to $875 passed.

  Soon after the budget allocation summary was released, members of the Finance Committee received emails from Federalist Society members implying “viewpoint discrimination” and alleging a failure to equitably distribute funds. One very ironic email from an active member advocated for an equitable cap on the funds an organization may receive. Unfortunately for the Federalist Society, the SBA allocates funds based on merit. No organization is entitled to funds simply because it exists.

  First, never has anyone in a budget hearing inquired into the views, political or otherwise, of a student organization or their members. That kind of information is irrelevant to allocating SBA funds. Funding decisions are based on where the committee thinks we can get the most value per dollar for all students. $5,000 for five students to galivant around the nation's capital for a weekend is not an efficient use of SBA funds. As an example of an efficient use of funds, last year about 100 people attended the annual NLG State of Labor conference at CSU, which cost about $4,000 and had three panels, including one on jobs in labor law, and an organization fair.

  Second, even if the decision was in any way based on the views of the Federalist Society organization, it would not be viewpoint discrimination. The First Amendment protects people from government censorship, but it does not apply to private actors. The members of SBA do not work on behalf of the federal government, state government, or the University. We are elected by and work for the students at CSU College of Law.

  Third, even if the SBA acted as agents of the government, it did not engage in viewpoint discrimination. We did not deny funds because of the speech or views of any organization. We simply denied funds for an excessive and extravagant trip to D.C. The First Amendment does not compel the government to provide a platform for all speech; only that speech (barring some very narrow exceptions) may not be suppressed because of its content. The Federalist Society still has a platform at CSU. They already hosted a debate (which they received funds from their national organization for) and can reserve rooms for events for free. It is entirely possible for an organization to grow and flourish without receiving any money from SBA.

  Finally, if the Federalist Society has a problem with the way the SBA allocates funds, then they need to participate in the process. All SBA general body and committee meetings, including the Finance Committee meetings, are open to faculty and students. Other than giving a budget pitch, no member of the Federalist Society bothered to show up to any Finance Committee meeting. Additionally, the Federalist Society has three members in the Senate, including the President of SBA, none of whom spoke against the funding reduction or proposed a motion to increase funds.

  Decisions are made by those who show up, and when it comes to CSU Law and SBA, the Federalist Society is nowhere to be seen, but they will certainly take your money for a ritzy weekend vacation.