The Undergraduate Council’s Election Commission has prohibited potential council presidential and vice-presidential candidates from talking to the media and has delayed launching a campus-wide publicity effort, leading some to say the commission has unfairly benefited certain candidates.

According to a message sent to the council’s open e-mail list last week by Election Commission chair David I. Monteiro ’04, the commission voted “to continue the existing requirement that candidates may not discuss their campaigns with the news media until further notice.”

“Violations of this policy will be taken very seriously,” Monteiro added.

In a separate e-mail, he declined to elaborate on the rationale or the consequences of the new standards.

Campaigning officially begins on Dec. 2, and council bylaws prohibit any campaigning before the official start date.

What constitutes “campaigning,” however, is uncertain; the constitution’s bylaws do not give a definition. At last week’s council meeting, Monteiro said public announcements or requests for support count as campaigning.

He also acknowledged the problem of gathering 100 signatures for the candidacy petition—which all prospective candidates must garner in order to be included on the ballot—without actually campaigning.

Council President Sujean S. Lee ’03 said campaigning constitutes “discussing platforms.”

“If a person asks a candidate whether they’re running—yes or no—it’s not campaigning to answer that question,” Lee said.

But commission member Uronna N. Gaillard ’04 said last night that Monteiro’s statement means “prospective candidates may not talk to media about anything concerning the fact that they are prospective candidates.”

Thus Lee’s “yes or no” example would actually be considered campaigning by the Election Commission, Gaillard said.

The commission’s stringent restrictions on correspondence with the media came only a week after two candidates, David M. Darst ’05 and Fred O. Smith ’04, officially told The Crimson of their intentions to run for council president.

This resulted in some prospective candidates having had the opportunity to talk to the media before the gag, while others did not.

One individual close to the council said this was “asymmetric enforcement” that may have put some candidates at a disadvantage.

Communication with the media was far less restricted last year, when all presidential candidates openly told The Crimson about their intentions weeks before campaigning was officially set to begin.