There is an old saying, “It takes money to make money.” I completely agree. I had to invest $10 in listing fees to make $1,200 from selling my laptop on eBay. Though this may be true of business, does the same rule apply to politics? Does it “take money to make decisions”? Some of you believe the immediate answer to that question is “yes.” In national politics that is very true, for the most part.

Candidates will pour millions into their campaigns to better their chances at electoral victory, but spending the most does not guarantee a victory. Mitt Romney can personally attest to that.

According to MSNBC, he spent $7 million to compete in the Iowa caucuses and lost to Mike Huckabee, who only spent $1.4 million.

So, with this evidence concluding that money does not always pick the winner, should we care if the spending cap on our student senate elections has been lifted? Of course we should.

Although historical precedent shows that the one who spends the most does not always win, there are major differences between national or local politics and student senate elections. We need to acknowledge that our peers running for student senate seats are not professional politicians.

They are students first and do not have the time or resources to continually campaign. Candidates for national office can spend months throwing fundraising events to supplement any money they cannot personally afford to put from their bank account.

Student senate candidates do not have that sort of time. Much of the money they spend comes directly from their own pockets.

If people thought that the amount of chalking and advertising was excessive in the past, without a spending limit there is no boundary to what candidates can do. Advertising is only restricted by basic vandalizing laws and the candidates’ own creativity.

In addition to restricting the amount of advertising purchased, spending caps also discouraged candidates from outsourcing campaign duties. Most student senate candidates campaign by themselves or with a few close friends.

Without a limit, students are free to hire any number of less nobly motivated people to campaign for them. These people can do everything from chalking the Quad, to passing out fliers, or just continually scream “Vote for SO-AND-SO!” I would not be surprised to see campaign balloons anchored to the side of the Quad’s walkways.

Student senate candidates do not receive the amount of free advertising that national candidates get. It is almost impossible to turn on the news, open a paper or log on the Web without seeing some form of discussion about presidential candidates.

Whether it’s Mike Huckabee appearing on “The Late Show,” Hillary Clinton on “The Tyra Banks Show” or just nightly news reporting how Barack Obama is planning to spend his Valentine’s Day, these candidates get a lot of press for just living their lives.

This sort of coverage is, in part, a result of their advertising, but there is no similar form of free advertising available to prospective student senators.

We should also want our student election process to promote as much participation as possible.

We should not want to deter people from running because they feel they would not have enough money to seriously compete.

There are problems within the national election system that discourage people from running for office. Often the people who throw their hat in the ring are economically affluent and/or have connections to people who are.

These issues, that plague the equality of opportunity in national elections, are multifaceted and are not easily solved by simple solutions (like a spending limit).

But as students of the University of Illinois, we should hold ourselves (and our elections) to a higher standard. If there are ways for us to “level the playing field” for all candidates and increase the political participation of students, then we should jump at the opportunity to do so.

Paul is a junior in political and computer science and can’t wait to read all the catchy and funny campaign slogans that this semester will bring.