In 2011, Hofstra University in New York had around 19,000 applicants. In 2013, these numbers grew to almost 27,000 applicants. A 50 percent jump in almost two years is phenomenal, unless of course something exciting occurred on campus in the interim. Well, in 2012, Hofstra University hosted a presidential debate. The previous debate they hosted in 2008 also led to a boost in applications, though only by 20 percent.
Since 2000, college campuses have hosted every presidential and vice-presidential debate. While many commentators may say that they want to host the event to foster greater on-campus political dialogue, it’s clear from the numbers that there are benefits attached. Many of the schools that host debates are less well known and without strong NCAA teams. They see hosting debates as a way to get name recognition, which leads to a significant increase in applications, as well as alumni donations. For a school such as Lynn University, which hosted the 2012 foreign policy debate, this prospect was a huge opportunity that they took advantage of.
The name recognition comes at a steep financial cost. The minimum financial commitment for a hosting college is $1.5 million, and that cost doesn’t include any updates that must be done to facilities or security. Hosting consumes a significant portion of hosting colleges’ budgets—the 2000 presidential debate at University of Massachusetts-Boston cost five percent of the school’s yearly budget, leading to student protests.
Student protesters were not the only ones worried about the extensive cost of campus debates. In November 2013, the Internal Revenue Service proposed changes to regulations for politically active nonprofit groups, and questioned whether or not these should extend to colleges. While the proposed regulations were largely due to excessive spending by nonprofits such as Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, the organization clearly took into consideration concerns about presidential debates on college campuses. The proposed regulations would take away tax exemption from social welfare 501(c)(4) nonprofits if they were seen to be involved in excessive political activity.
As it stands, most colleges are nonprofits without a political purpose. And while the proposed changes were largely in response to political nonprofits using their status to shield their donors, the amount of money that universities spend on these debates should not be ignored. Especially when, as UMass-Boston student protesters noted, the college is public and thus government funded.
It’s important that universities, by and large, remain outside of the money game that has become our political campaign system. Requiring that the hosting university shell out millions of dollars is exorbitant and really speaks to how far we’ve come as a nation in terms of making politics all about who has the biggest wallet. The long-term benefits of increased name recognition are important, but not if it’s at the cost of student welfare.
That being said, campus debates are a key part of our political system. For the past four presidential election cycles there has been as steady increase in voter turnout, particularly for young voters (though the 2012 election upset the trend). While I don’t want to claim that this increase in young voter turnout is due to campus debates, it is an interesting coincidence.
Campus debates do a lot to engage young voters. Most students at universities are first-time voters and haven’t been exposed to the political climate that we at Georgetown take for granted. Hosting a debate gets students talking about politics, whether they want to or not.
The existence of campus debates also coincides with the mission of the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is to educate. Teaching young voters about the political process through on-campus events is important to creating an informed generation of voters. At the same time, the exorbitant cost that the CPD charges colleges is prohibitive and calls into question the financials of the organization, which has already been criticized for being a “secretive tax-exempt organization.” The CPD should be responsible for paying for the debates while the colleges should be responsible for hosting the event and engaging students in discussions about national issues.
The possibility that the IRS write into law that universities could see their tax exempt status taken away for hosting a campus debate penalizes young voters instead of dealing with the real issue of the business of politics. College debates are critical to the engagement of students in the political process and serve to ignite further discussions. While the IRS’s original proposal is certainly admirable in its attempt to reduce the influence of money on politics, it needs to be careful when it comes to colleges. Though many of the universities host the debates for less than altruistic reasons, they still play a role in educating the American public. Stopping the endless stream of money from nonprofits to candidates should not prevent universities from doing their jobs and informing the next generation of voters.
Have a political purpose with Sara at sainsworth@georgetownvoice.com.
