After weeks of campaigning by numerous Texas A&M students, the spring Student Government Association, or SGA, election cycle is officially over. For students, this means no more campaign groups bannering outside the Memorial Student Center, no more dodging flyer-holders asking for your vote and no more “Vote for XYZ” posters on every bulletin board.
At the time of writing, there were 104 documented reports of alleged campaign rule violations during the election process. As a result, SGA’s Election Commission cited four minor violations against candidates and disqualified another from their Student Senate campaign.
Just a small fraction of the total amount of reported violations had actual action taken against them. There are a couple of possible reasons for this — were people taking advantage of the anonymous report system to try to “expose” other candidates, or were they all legitimate claims that didn’t have sufficient evidence?
There’s also a court case being reviewed by the SGA’s Judicial Court on alleged election campaign violations committed by the prior student body president and vice president candidates Riley Pritzlaff and Ezra Villarreal, respectively, and the Good Bull campaign group.
Those aside, there was one extremely controversial method of campaigning performed by student body president candidate Colton Whisenant and his running mate Brock Barrington. Many A&M students — including myself — received text messages from Whisenant’s campaign requesting us to voice any concerns we had about A&M and asking for our vote.
It was unclear how they had acquired the names and phone numbers of students who don’t recall giving their information to campaign organizers. Later, their campaign finance reports revealed that they purchased open records requests through A&M and used the information to campaign directly to students.
Many reported violations allege that this tactic broke SGA campaigning rules. However, the Election Commission ruled on Feb. 26 that Whisenant’s strategy did not violate electronic campaigning laws or election regulations.
Instances of alleged campaign fraud — from improper online campaigning to mass texts — have seemingly become common occurrences in Student Government. Why are students being motivated to act in unethical manners during campaigns? And, more importantly, what can we do about it?
Many students at A&M and other universities across the country strive for these positions because of the benefits and opportunities that accompany them. Those who attain roles in SGA have direct access to important stakeholders and connections across campus.
But in reality, students are largely unaware of SGA, and most aren’t active in elections. There were only 11,294 eligible ballots for the 2025 student body president election. With an enrollment of almost 80,000 students, those who vote showcase a minority of the university population and may not provide an accurate representation of Aggies’ views.
Because of the low turnout, candidates can use the organizations they’re in to drastically influence the results.
Large student body groups such as the Interfraternity Council, National Pan-Hellenic Council and Corps of Cadets strongly encourage students to run for SGA positions and use their immense presence to encourage Aggies to vote for them.
While this doesn’t break any rules, it leads to vocal minorities having a much larger presence on campus than what would be considered normal. For example, every single endorsed member of an IFC fraternity who ran for Student Senate in Spring of 2025 has won their position.
Candidates also spend a considerable amount of money on these campaigns. For the recent student body president race, the four contenders spent an average of $2,300 on campaign expenses, ranging from printed T-shirts to open record requests.
If you, as a college student, were spending that much money on an election, wouldn’t you do whatever it takes to win, even by committing election fraud?
In 2017, SBP candidate Robert McIntosh was initially disqualified from the race for reports of voter intimidation. This violation was later overturned, but he was later disqualified again for failing to report an expense incurred during his campaign.
This set off a frenzy at A&M and led former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to comment on the situation while serving as the secretary of energy under President Donald Trump’s first administration.
Failure to report election expenses and unethical campaigning practices are one of the most common reasons for violations at A&M and continue to be a hotly contested issue in our election system.
We are a school that prides itself on leadership and service — it’s no wonder students are motivated to participate in high-level leadership roles such as SGA. However, there are problems with how students campaign for positions, and we have a responsibility to hold everyone accountable for their choices.
We have the power to vote for candidates who represent us the best — the ones who focus on making Aggies’ lives better and are not in it for the position or the impressive resume booster.
What can we do to solve this issue?
For students, the most simple answer is to vote. Voting is one of the most crucial tools we have to change institutions such as the SGA. Listening to what candidates have to say and choosing those who take appropriate actions will show those in power how they should represent us.
The SGA itself also needs to take a look at their election policies. Are these really the best rules and regulations to prevent unethical behavior during elections? You represent us at A&M, and we deserve fair elections that allow for the best candidate to win.
We are the next generation of adults in power. Are we going to follow the example of politicians and embrace public service for personal gain, or will we be ethical leaders who do good for all no matter what office we hold?
I hope the answer to this question is obvious for all Aggies.
Wyatt Pickering is a business honors and finance sophomore and opinion writer for The Battalion.
