Word: ticketing
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1990-1999
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Last Wednesday evening--the last day of voting--the commission met to address possible over-spending and campaign violations by the Driskell-Burton ticket. Possible violations alleged by other campaigns include the stuffing of the first-year mailboxes--a potential University offense, which would merit immediate disqualification--and overspending through use of in-kind donations...
...commission's mishandling of the spending issue only scratches the surface of what seems to be a complacent attitude toward alleged violations by the Driskell-Burton ticket. Although commission rules dictate that candidates who commit a University offense should be immediately disqualified, the commission seemed to look the other way when Driskell-Burton flyers appeared in first-year mailboxes. This failure to investigate the matter is especially disturbing because rival presidential candidate Sterling P.A. Darling '01 earlier requested permission from the College to do the same thing--and was denied...
...seems unclear about whether the Driskell-Burton ticket actually exceeded this limit. This ambiguity and the EC's questionable response have fueled speculation on the council that the ticket should have been disqualified from the race...
...originally said the pair received too many "in-kind" donations--goods that a ticket receives for free but that still count towards its total expense limit. Driskell and Burton claimed, though, that these were actually things any candidate could have obtained and should not count toward their total spending...
...decided that, because Burton had received permission from a mail-room worker, he had not committed an ad-boardable offense. Had they decided otherwise, the Driskell-Burton ticket would automatically have been kicked out of the campaign--and their sweeping victory would have been overturned...