Running an election campaign is tough on the candidate and all of the people working to help that candidate, whether the election is on a national level or just for a spot on the VSU SGA.
�
  Therefore, the editorial staff of the Spectator does not believe a candidate should have to monitor whether or not people are privately making endorsement t-shirts, nor that the candidate should be penalized for the actions of other people.

   Not only will fixating on such trivial matters distract voters from focusing on the qualifications of the SGA candidates, it will also start a fixation that insults the intelligence of an educated student body.

This is not to say that some campaign issues do not warrant genuine attention.

   In national election campaigns, reducing the flow of special interest money has posed a challenge, and it is something that requires a lot of attention. Those who are responsible for causing this problem should be held responsible.

   Candidates misusing their campaign contributions have also been a problem. For example, when Senator John Edwards allegedly used hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep his mistress and illegitimate child hidden, he deserved to be punished and held accountable.

   These situations are examples of serious problems. A student painting a candidate’s name on a t-shirt is not.

   Why waste energy, and why disqualify a candidate, for a t-shirt or a lawn sign he or she is not responsible for? That will not solve problems, and it will reflect badly upon VSU’s policies.

   SGA candidates should win or lose based on their own merits and what they have to offer VSU. The Spectator understands that rules for running campaigns are important, but some of them go too far.

We hope that in this election, the candidates will be free to focus on the issues, not the little matters.