A long week of Student Government Association campaigning at the University of Tennessee ended Wednesday night with a victory for the Action campaign group -- they came out on top by nearly 1,000 votes.
John Rader and Anna York met with their supporters at Charlie Pepper's on the Cumberland Avenue "strip" to announce the good news.
Rader receieved 2,897 of the 6,479 votes cast in the election. York received 2,877 votes.
The Action campaign also celebrated winning the majority of senate seats.
Action was able to overcome several controversies that arose on the last days of the campaign, which resulted in the SGA ethics sommittee revoking some of Action's campaigning time.Action was not the only party to step outside the bounds of the campaigning rules outlined in the 2007 SGA Election Packet.
Vols Unite was found guilty of campaigning inside university buildings and dispersing political fliers illegally through the Daily Beacon.
Vols Unite candidates Jon Papaik and Keaton Williams finished the elections in second place. Papaik garnered 1,959 votes while Williams received 1,945. The Unite team also snagged 10 senate seats.
The third place party, Students For a Just University, or SJU, had substantially lower campaign expenditures and it showed in the final vote tally.
Monday's Campaign Value Report showed Vol's Unite spent $4,759. Action's total costs were $3,833 and SJU was supported by $593.
SJU candidates Brian May and Katie Wiliams said they will not let the defeat discourage them from running the same kind of campaign again next year.
"It's difficult to win when you're outspent by 10 to 20 times," May said.
(This story has has been revised from an earlier version that originally appeared on the site. That version used direct quotations gleaned from the UT Daily Beacon.)


Comments
Hope commented, on April 18, 2007 at 6:15 p.m.:
This is blatant plagiarism of a staff writer's piece from the Beacon. This is an embarrassment to the staff and institution of TNJN. The fact that the writer had no moral qualms about writing this piece, or that the TNJN had no problems endorsing and publishing this article, is unsettling and disappointing to say the least.