Student Body President-Elect Accused of ‘Major’ Campaign Violation

Texas A&M Judicial Court Review:

On Thursday, March 7 2024, the Judicial Court at Texas A&M University assembled to adjudicate a dispute involving the Student Body President-Elect, Cade Coppinger, and the Election Commissioner, Jared Ramos. The controversy centers around a major violation Coppinger allegedly committed during his campaigning activity for the presidency of Texas A&M’s student body.

Alleged Campaign Violation:

The supposed transgression pertains to a video that Coppinger posted on Instagram on February 12, showing his stroll through A&M’s Memorial Student Center (MSC). Coppinger stands accused of using the video for campaigning purposes, which is deemed as a violation of the Election Commission regulations.

In accordance with these regulations, filming inside certain premises, including the MSC and other specified buildings and areas, for the purpose of campaigning, is explicitly prohibited during the campaigning period. Any candidate found in major violation of these norms is obliged to pay a penalty equating to 15% of their campaign budget.

The Timing Controversy:

The case hinges on an interpretation of the Election Commission code which stipulates that violation reports must be filed within 24 hours of the incident. Graysen Lewis, a sophomore in Sociology who serves as Judge Advocate General, argued that Coppinger’s alleged violation was reported well after this time-frame.

Resorting to evidence, Lewis presented a screenshot of Coppinger’s Instagram video to the court. The snapshot supposedly revealed that Coppinger’s video was posted on February 12, while the violation reports were filed on February 18 and February 23—significantly beyond the stipulated 24-hour period. Hence, Lewis contends that Coppinger’s alleged violation is, in fact, invalid.

Active Campaigning or Innocuous Social Media Posting:

An important facet of the dispute concerns whether Coppinger’s video indeed constitutes active campaigning. Lewis argues against this, asserting that there was no explicit call to action nor obvious solicitation of votes within Coppinger’s video.

Opposing this argument, Judge Advocate General Celerino Lopez, a Philosophy sophomore, posited that since the video shows Coppinger in the MSC, ostensibly soliciting votes, it functionally amounts to a violation.

Discussions grew more heated when a watermark attached to the video, featuring the hashtag “#ChooseCade,” was brought to the fore. Lopez argued that this watermark implied the video’s utilization for campaigning purposes. Conversely, Coppinger contended that he added the hashtag merely as a means to enable viewers to access his campaign materials.

Verdict Awaited:

All the evidence and arguments are now in the hands of the Judicial Court. The decision will set a precedence for future social media and campaign violation cases. As the Texas A&M community holds its breath, the verdict will answer the question—Was Coppinger exercising his right to free expression on social media or deliberately flouting campaign regulations?