In making its comments on the new Elections Code passed by the USG Senate Tuesday evening, the Collegian made highly prejudicial statements that by examining the facts and history, one can determine are baseless and untrue.

First, the spending cap for senate races is not new, $100 was the limit last year, and no senate campaign, successful or not, used even close to that limit, as this former candidate can tell you.

Secondly, the proposed spending cap for the executive ticket is appropriate based upon trends from previous years. For example, just last year the winning ticket nearly spent their entire $800 limit, whereas the second and third place tickets did not even spend close to the $800 limit. Should we allow students to buy the presidency and vice-presidency because their bank account is larger?

The Collegian insinuated that the shortened campaign season would "minimize opportunities for candidates' exposure." Last year's Elections Commission organized a "Meet the Candidates" for the South Halls senate race. Only two candidates of three showed up and due to the Commission's apparent lack of advertising there was no audience. Not even a commission official came to run the session. It seems the problem is not with the Elections Code, but with the Election Commissioners and certain candidates.

The situation concerning polling was also misrepresented by the Collegian when it failed to report the entire state of affairs. What the editorial failed to state was that last year the vast majority of voting was done online, in the system's inaugural year, and that turnout was the highest in history because of the online voting system.

I applaud the USG Senate in reforming an Elections Code that based upon personal experience I can say was bloated and unnecessarily complex.