2003-2008: Aaron Flint Exceeded Spending Limits In Two Student Government Campaigns, Unsuccessfully Sued The University When He Was Denied His Seat, And Appealed All The Way To The Supreme Court

2003: Flint Exceeded The Spending Limit For His ASUM Presidential Campaign And Was Censured

2003: Flint And His Running Mate Spent About $300 To Win The ASUM Presidency And Vice Presidency, Which Was More Than The $175 Spending Limit. “At the time of the filing of this action, Plaintiff Aaron Flint was the President of ASUM. He was elected to that position, among other things, by violating ASUM's campaign spending bylaws during the 2003 elections. Campaign spending was limited in the 2003 elections to $175.00 for a president and vice president candidate team. Flint and his running mate, current ASUM president-elect Gail Price, spent roughly $300.00 on their campaign. For this they were censured during the 2003-04 academic year, while Flint was president of ASUM.” [U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Flint v. Dennison, Order, filed 8/20/04]

Flint Was Censured For Exceeding The Campaign Spending Limit. “At the time of the filing of this action, Plaintiff Aaron Flint was the President of ASUM. He was elected to that position, among other things, by violating ASUM's campaign spending bylaws during the 2003 elections. Campaign spending was limited in the 2003 elections to $175.00 for a president and vice president candidate team. Flint and his running mate, current ASUM president-elect Gail Price, spent roughly $300.00 on their campaign. For this they were censured during the 2003-04 academic year, while Flint was president of ASUM.” [U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Flint v. Dennison, Order, filed 8/20/04]

2004: Flint Exceeded The Spending Limit For His ASUM Senate Campaign And Was Denied His Seat

2004: Flint Spent $214.69 To Run For ASUM Senate, Which Was More Than The $100 Spending Limit. “Following that censure, Flint ran for a post in the ASUM senate and was again elected. Once again he violated the spending rules, spending $214.69 despite the expenditure limit of $100.00, and it is probably a fair assumption that he did so on purpose. Flint disclosed his second campaign finance violation on April 26, 2004, the day before the polls opened. The ASUM senate met on April 28, 2004 and, pursuant to § 5 of Article V of the ASUM bylaws, voted to deny Flint his seat should be elected. Flint responded by filing this action.” [U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Flint v. Dennison, Case No. CV 04-85-M-DWM, Order, filed 8/20/04]

The ASUM Senate Voted To Deny Flint His Seat If He Was Elected. “Following that censure, Flint ran for a post in the ASUM senate and was again elected. Once again he violated the spending rules, spending $214.69 despite the expenditure limit of $100.00, and it is probably a fair assumption that he did so on purpose. Flint disclosed his second campaign finance violation on April 26, 2004, the day before the polls opened. The ASUM senate met on April 28, 2004 and, pursuant to § 5 of Article V of the ASUM bylaws, voted to deny Flint his seat should be elected. Flint responded by filing this action.” [U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Flint v. Dennison, Case No. CV 04-85-M-DWM, Order, filed 8/20/04]

December 2004: Flint Said He Was “Proud” To Have A Violation On His Academic Record “Because It’s An Act Of Civil Disobedience.” “Flint will graduate at the end of fall semester. Though his ASUM career is at an end, he said he hopes his lawsuit will strengthen student government. Flint's lawyers also seek to expunge his ASUM bylaw violation from his academic record. Flint said it makes little difference to him whether it's expunged or not. ‘I'm proud to carry that because it's an act of civil disobedience,’ Flint said.” [Montana Kaimin, 12/14/04]

2005: Flint Sued The University, Alleging It Violated His Free Speech Rights

2005: Flint Sued The University Of Montana’s President, ASUM, And ASUM’s Individual Members. “Plaintiff, Aaron Flint, filed this case against the University of Montana's President, the Associated Students of the University of Montana (‘ASUM’) and ASUM's individual members (collectively ‘ASUM’). He challenges ASUM bylaws that cap candidate campaign expenditures for all offices at $100.00 per election. Flint took matters in his own hands and deliberately violated the duly enacted campaign limits. After twice violating ASUM's spending restrictions once during his successful presidential campaign in 2003 and then again in 2004 while running for senate and a subsequent ASUM resolution preventing Flint from assuming the senatorial seat to which he was elected, Flint now contends the restrictions violate his First Amendment free speech rights.” [U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Flint v. Dennison, Case No. CV 04-85-M-DWM, Decision, filed 3/28/05]

• Flint Contended That Campaign Spending Limits Violated His First Amendment Free Speech Rights. “After twice violating ASUM's spending restrictions once during his successful presidential campaign in 2003 and then again in 2004 while running for senate and a subsequent ASUM resolution preventing Flint from assuming the senatorial seat to which he was elected, Flint now contends the restrictions violate his First Amendment free speech rights.” [U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Flint v. Dennison, Case No. CV 04-85-M-DWM, Decision, filed 3/28/05]

August 2004: The U.S. District Court Denied Flint’s Motion For A Preliminary Injunction

August 2004: The U.S. District Court Denied Flint’s Motion For A Preliminary Injunction. “In my view, at this point, the balance of hardships favors of ASUM. Everyone follows the rules but Flint and he could have challenged the regulations after his first censure but chose not to. Whether that decision was for tactical reasons or not, I don't think the circumstances warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction. […] Based on the foregoing discussion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Aaron Flint's motion for a preliminary injunction (dkt. # 2) is DENIED.” [U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Flint v. Dennison, Case No. CV 04-85-M-DWM, Order, filed 8/20/04]

U.S. District Court: “Everyone Follows The Rules But Flint” And “He Could Have Challenged The Regulations After His First Censure But Chose Not To.” “The hardship imposed on Flint by the denial of his motion is that he will not be permitted to take his seat in the ASUM senate when the 2004-05 academic year begins, a seat to which he was elected by violating ASUM bylaws. If the motion is granted, ASUM suffers hardship in that its ability to enforce its election regulations is undermined. The balance of hardships does not so favor Flint as to overcome his low likelihood of success on the merits. In my view, at this point, the balance of hardships favors of ASUM. Everyone follows the rules but Flint and he could have challenged the regulations after his first censure but chose not to. Whether that decision was for tactical reasons or not, I don't think the circumstances warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction.” [U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Flint v. Dennison, Case No. CV 04-85-M-DWM, Order, filed 8/20/04]

2005: The U.S. District Court Ruled Against Flint, Saying Spending Restrictions Were “A Reasonable Attempt To Maintain Equal Access”

March 2005: The U.S. District Court Granted Summary Judgment For The Defendants. “Because ASUM's campaign expenditure restrictions are reasonable in light of ASUM's educational purpose, they do not violate Flint's First Amendment free speech rights. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 66) converted to Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; 2. Judgment shall be entered for Defendants and all other pending motions shall be DENIED as moot.” [U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Flint v. Dennison, Case No. CV 04-85-M-DWM, Decision, filed 3/28/05]

• U.S. District Court: “Overall, ASUM’s Spending Restrictions Are A Reasonable Attempt To Maintain Equal Access To The Pedagogical Benefits Of ASUM Participation Throughout The Student Body.” “Guaranteeing that students need not have substantial personal resources to have a fair opportunity to run for, and win election to, ASUM appears particularly important at the University of Montana. Over two-thirds of the student population at the University of Montana receive financial aid, including three-quarters of in-state students. Decl. of Myron Hanson ¶ 6. Additionally, in 2002-03, 34% of undergraduates received Federal Pell Grants, which only the most financially needy students may obtain. Id. ¶ 4. According to the Director of the University's Financial Aid Office, these percentages exceed most flagship public universities in the U.S. Id. Consequently, these students with limited financial resources are less likely to have access to the educational experience ASUM participation provides. […] Overall, ASUM's spending restrictions are a reasonable attempt to maintain equal access to the pedagogical benefits of ASUM participation throughout the student body.” [U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Flint v. Dennison, Case No. CV 04-85-M-DWM, Decision, filed 3/28/05]

2007: The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Ruled Against Flint, Saying Students Were Forced To Campaign Personally Rather Than Getting Money From A Parent Or Activist Group

2007: The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Affirmed The District Court’s Summary Judgment. “By creating a student election process, the University of Montana has opened a limited public forum dedicated to allow campaigning for and election to leadership positions in student government. The University's purpose in opening such a forum is to provide student candidates and student voters a certain type of educational experience. We hold that imposing an expenditure limitation on student candidates is viewpoint neutral and serves to effectuate the purpose of the ASUM elections. We therefore affirm the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants. AFFIRMED.” [U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Flint v. Dennison, CV-04-00085-DWM, Opinion, filed 5/31/07]

Ninth Circuit Court: “Students Are Forced To Campaign Personally, Wearing Out Their Shoe-Leather Rather Than Wearing Out A Parent’s — Or An Activist Organization's — Pocketbook.” “We find that the spending limits reasonably serve this pedagogical aim. ASUM exists to teach students responsible leadership and behavior. Imposing limits on candidate spending requires student candidates to focus on desirable qualities such as the art of persuasion, public speaking, and answering questions face-to-face with one's potential constituents. Students are forced to campaign personally, wearing out their shoe-leather rather than wearing out a parent's — or an activist organization's — pocketbook.” [U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Flint v. Dennison, CV-04-00085-DWM, Opinion, filed 5/31/07]

2008: The U.S. Supreme Court Rejected Flint’s Appeal

2008: The U.S. Supreme Court Rejected Flint’s Appeal In His Case Against The University Of Montana. “In 2004, Aaron Flint sued the University of Montana after being kicked off the ASUM Senate for violating campaign finance rules. He lost in Federal District Court in Missoula in March 2005. Now, with his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court rejected on Jan. 7, Flint has been denied his last chance to win his case.” [Montana Kaimin, 2/7/08]

2008: In Responding To The Decision, Flint Said, “ASUM Is Therefore Not A Legitimate Voice To Lobby The Legislature On Behalf Of Student” Because They Are “Controlled By The Administration.” “Flint, who now lives in Billings and works as a reporter for the CBS station there, gave his thoughts on the effect the 9th Circuit decision will have on student government in an e-mail to the Kaimin. ‘Where does this leave us: if student government is merely an academic exercise -- then why force students to pay nearly $100 in fees supporting such? We also now have a 9th Circuit ruling stating that administrators have control over student government,’ Flint wrote. ‘So, since they are controlled by the Administration, and they don't follow the same election laws that everyone else follows -- ASUM is therefore not a legitimate voice to lobby the legislature on behalf of students.’” [Montana Kaimin, 2/7/08]

• Flint Said The Ninth Circuit Ruling Meant That “Administrators Have Control Over Student Government.” “Flint, who now lives in Billings and works as a reporter for the CBS station there, gave his thoughts on the effect the 9th Circuit decision will have on student government in an e-mail to the Kaimin. ‘Where does this leave us: if student government is merely an academic exercise -- then why force students to pay nearly $100 in fees supporting such? We also now have a 9th Circuit ruling stating that administrators have control over student government,’ Flint wrote. ‘So, since they are controlled by the Administration, and they don't follow the same election laws that everyone else follows -- ASUM is therefore not a legitimate voice to lobby the legislature on behalf of students.’” [Montana Kaimin, 2/7/08]

2003: Flint Said He Wanted Student Government To “Not Just Be A Whining Group Of Political Activists”

2003: Flint: “I Want AUSM To Focus On Accomplishing Things For Students And Not Just Be A Whining Group Of Political Activists.” “As president of the university's student government, Flint said his goal is to get more students, interested in campus happenings and to be more responsive to student concerns than past ASUM presidents. ‘I want ASUM to focus on accomplishing things for students and not just be a whining group of political activists,’ he said.” [Missoulian, 9/3/03]

Flint: “Really, Most Student Issues Are Nonpolitical.” “Despite his heavy Republican tendencies and his past life as a twotime intern and staffer for Burns, Flint said his tenure this year at the helm of ASUM will be nonpolitical, ‘I'm here, and ASUM is here to represent both sides and all sides of student issues,’ Flint said. ‘And really, most student issues are nonpolitical.’” [Missoulian, 9/3/03]