I say ignore the fuckers. Run your ads, wear your shirts… you can always sue if you get removed from the ballot. None of this is particularly surprising… just more proof that Con Court badly needs to be gutted and replaced with people who are not connected with the good old ASUO interests. I have literally never read an opinion by those clowns that has made a tiny bit of sense, and yet they basically have absolute power over the ASUO.

As Ian says, bullshit like this happens every year. Roll with it kids!

Anonymous…good effort but you need to think this through. Now is not the time to get hyperemotional and lose rational thought. One more thing, the opposing slate could not be held accountable in court. Only the UO can be viewed as a state actor, thus the other slate is off of the hook.

Sam and Johnny…just pull the ads and divert your attention elsewhere.

Again, I highly recommend taking this to real court if there is any issue with your ads being published. The con court really only had one option with this case, and they chose to not exerciser it. That option was to strike down a rule which is illegal. That section is not in line with State or Federal free speech protection. And it needs to removed. The con court should have struck it from the books. Instead, they simply interpreted it.

What a weak, shameful decision. This is the kind of absurdity which brings about horrible decisions like Plessy v. Ferguson - either biased or weak jurists trying to maintain government control where control is absolutely prohibited.

The Con Court has overstepped their bounds and this clarification should never have been submitted in the first place. The Con Court has made a ruling which is not within the reasonable principles of the constitutional law - they are saying you cannot purchase ads in a newspaper and run for campus office. This is not only rediculous, but it is invalid.

If for some reason action is taken against your campaign for printing ads in the Daily Emerald, then I would advise your campaign to seek legal counsel and take this case to a real court, where the ASUO Con Court’s decision will promptly be thrown out based on the most basic principles of first amendment case law.

Shame on the Con Court for publishing such a shortsighted ruling. I can forgive them considering they’re a campus institution. But they would not be able to pull this shit in real court. Again, ignore this ruling, publish your ads. If the opposing campaign brings a grievance and tries to disqualify you all, then take them to real court. You’d have a solid case.

The ASUO does stupid shit and the OC editor goes (at least) a little crazy every year.

That’s still how it works.

There’s a reason advertising is a completely separate department from the newsroom. To keep political biases out of advertising and to keep the newsroom from feeling obligated to endorse or condone something in an ad. Candidates PAY for ads. There’s no reason that a newspaper that needs the revenue should turn away paying customers because of Con Court.

The ODE and the OC (wasn’t it cooler being called the OC before the awful TV show?) can run whatever ads they wish. Con Court can’t do a damn thing about it. They have no control over the content of campus media. Someone could file a grievance against the candidates for placing the ads, but Con Court has no authority whatsoever to tell a newspaper it can’t place ads from paying customers.

Con Court needs to read through the ODE and OC archives and see how many times candidates have run paid advertisements in both over the years. Their “interpretation” is not strong enough grounds to reverse this practice.

I repeat, the Commentator and Daily Emerald would never deny an advertisement for political reasons. In future elections, it should be clear that paying for advertisements in campus publications is a valid practice.