The Student Senate has passed the embattled election reform bill, albeit with several amendments. The controversial decision to cut spending limits was the main issue that was discussed in the Student Senate meeting last Wednesday. In the end, that section was completely eliminated from the bill.

According to Kenneth Webb, a senator and the Chairman of the University Affairs Committee, the bill’s original creator, the first bill eliminated spending limits for SG campaigns completely.

But whenever the bill came before the Senate, that section in particular was met with opposition. The majority of the Senate voted against the bill and those that voted in favor cited the dishonesty among campaigners as a primary reason to eliminate spending limits.

Eventually, the bill made it through the Senate with several amendments made to it, most important of which was to the spending limits decision, Webb said.

“The main thing taken out was the spending limits [section,]” Webb, a senior in computer science, said. “[The Senate] decided to leave spending limits in and to increase them.”

The bill will be enacted if Student Body President Jay Dawkins does not veto the bill.

Student Senate President Pro Tempore Kelli Rogers said that the new limit for Student Body President would be $750. After that, the system will still be a heiarchy, with higher positions in SG having higher spending limits. Before the bill, the highest limit was $300 for Student Body President.

Another important change was the possible increase of the spending limits during the actual campaign, according to Webb.

“All the candidates [can] agree to increase the spending limits,” he said.

Essentially, all of the candidates vying for a position can agree to up the limits by filling out a form. This helps if the candidates feel like they need more money to help their respective campaigns, Webb said.

Student reaction to the decision has varied. Robert Beasley, a freshman in biochemistry, said he thought it wasn’t necessary to make any changes.

“If people are dishonest, just improve supervision and not increase spending,” Beasley said.

Joey Yandle, a senior in religious studies, said he was happy candidates still had a ceiling on how much they could spend.

“I’m glad they still have a cap, because [if not] then some could pretty much buy the election,” Yandle said.

Yandle also said he thought the increased cap was not high enough to affect who could participate.

“It still kind of keeps everyone on a level playing field,” he said. “It wouldn’t necessarily hurt people…it could keep [students] more aware because there will be more signs and plaques around campus.”