The UVU Review has obtained funding donation documents made by candidates who ran for student government. These funds include donations from the Campus Victory Project, an organization with political ties. While this is allowed, concerns have been raised over organizations with partisan ties being involved in nonpartisan student government.
These funding documents are in place to ensure donors are aware these donations are not tax deductible and are for the student, not the university. The documents are not widely shared, and this creates an environment of speculation.
Candidate funding disclosures
Student Body President Candidates: Kyle Cullimore (won) disclosed $1,715 from the Campus Victory Project (CVP) organization. Carter Olson (lost) disclosed $590 from 16 individuals. Cole Blackwell (lost) did not disclose any contributions.
Vice President of Connection Candidates: Miguel Mayorga (won) also disclosed $1,775 from CVP. Nyasha Gideon Paradzai (lost) disclosed $50 from an individual.
Vice President of Student Activities Candidates: Alex Stewart (won) did not disclose any funding. Isaac Lehman (lost) also did not disclose any funding.
Vice President of Academics Candidates: Abbie Fisher (won) did not disclose funding. Colby Swensen also did not disclose any funding. Liam Thiess disclosed $50 from a donor.
Some candidates admitted to accepting donations from friends or family without filling out the required disclosure forms. In previous years, this rule has often been clarified to reduce confusion.
What is the Campus Victory Project?
According to their website, the CVP is a nonprofit that is “Dedicated to activating, recruiting, supporting, and training a new generation of common sense and well-equipped leaders on the biggest college campuses in the United States of America.”
CVP appears to be closely linked to Turning Point USA (TPUSA). TPUSA lists CVP as one of their programs in their GuideStar nonprofit profile but does not reference them on their official website. The main offices of TPUSA and CVP are located across a parking lot from one another in Maricopa County, AZ. Maricopa County Accessor records show that the land lots of both groups are owned by Turning Point Endowment LLC, another affiliated company.
As reported by The Review and other outlets, a leaked TPUSA document from 2017 calls Campus Victory Project “A project of Turning Point USA.” The pamphlet describes a history of sponsoring conservative student government candidates and lists successes around the country.
Turning Point USA and Campus Victory Project could not be reached for comment for this article.
The Review was able to interview the president of UVU’s TPUSA club. “Every chapter on college campuses is nonpartisan, but Turning Point as an organization itself is kind of outside that college realm. They do tend to be more conservative and promote more conservative values.” Caleb Chilcutt, president of UVU TPUSA said.
Should we allow outside funding?
UVU has already taken steps to ensure every candidate has material to campaign. According to the election packet, candidates currently receive, “…100 feet of printed banner paper, 1,000 handbill fliers and 75-11×17 posters.”
Like most Utah universities, UVU does not restrict outside funds being donated to candidates running for student government. However, the University of Utah (U of U) is one exception. They completely ban fundraising and give each candidate $2,000 for fliers, candy and other expenses.
We interviewed candidates about their campaign experiences. Here are some of their thoughts on outside funding and U of U’s rules.
Kyle Cullimore Student-Body-President–Elect said that CVP was primarily a leadership organization and, “I support strong leadership and advocating for students. And so, when [CVP] offered to help with my campaign, I was like, that’s a perfect way for me to get to relate to students more and interact with them more using some of the resources and stuff they’ve given me.”
Cole Blackwell, who lost to Cullimore, initially looked into getting funding from UCCU. But he “chose not to look further into it because I did not want my campaign to be owned and run by an outside group.” When asked about UVU’s partial economical support he said, “I love how UVU gave us initial resources to work with.” Blackwell did end up spending money printing more fliers to keep up with competition.
Carter Olson, who also lost to Cullimore, said that, “If you can get that funding from outside organizations, good for you.” When asked if UVU should provide more funding for candidates and limit external donations, Carter said: “Yes, it’s good for leveling the playing field.” But at the same time, he emphasized the importance of talking with the community.
Vice President of Connections-elect Miguel Mayorga said that after asking a representative, he did not think CVP was still associated with TPUSA, “Because that’s the last thing I want you know? Is to be known as a candidate that only represents a certain group of students or another certain group of students. I would never have taken the funds if they had said yeah, we are still a part of this organization.” Mayorga also confirmed attending a CVP leadership event in December.
Nyasha Paradzai acknowledged that the table-toppers handed out by candidates can affect student voters, “But we are in college to prepare for real life; there is no election anywhere in real life where you have a cap on how much money you can spend.”
Conclusion
This article originally started because an anonymous concerned student contacted The Review about rumors of outside conservative organizations being involved in student government. They argued that “The student body presidency should represent the student body as a whole, not just those who agree with them politically, and they should certainly not represent off-campus political organizations.” They also advocated for greater transparency as a way for the student body to stay informed without needing to rely on gossip.
The candidates themselves were in agreement that getting more materials from UVU to campaign would level the playing field. But most also wanted to keep external funding unrestricted despite it giving a perceived noticeable advantage. Many candidates spoke about the financial burdens of running a campaign during interviews.
