Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow, a conservative campus group, is suing the Associated Students of Madison and various other University of Wisconsin parties on the basis of being denied funding unjustifiably.

On Sept. 22, 2008, the Student Services Finance Committee denied funding to CFACT, which promotes progress through a free market, by a vote 0-3-1.

Since then, CFACT appealed the decision to the SSFC, ASM’s Student Judiciary and then Chancellor Biddy Martin, all of whom upheld SFFC’s decision. The Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom then filed a federal lawsuit Aug. 19 against ASM, the Board of Regents — the governing body of the UW System — and Martin.

“The goal of the case is to ensure that America’s colleges and universities give conservative students the same rights as other students,” said David French, senior counsel for ADF. “All student groups should be given the same access to student fees regardless of their viewpoints.”

French said they believe CFACT was unfairly denied funding because SSFC violated viewpoint neutrality in their decision and granted other groups eligibility when they violated the same rules CFACT did, such as turning in all end-of-the-year forms on time. The most comparable campus organization that did receive funding was the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group, which leans left.

“It just appears that they have chosen to give free passes to [some] groups, but not to others,” French said. “The rules have to be applied to everyone.”

SSFC member Kyle Szarzynski said his vote to deny funding was not based on the missing forms, but rather he believes CFACT did not provide a direct service to students, violating ASM bylaws. Szarzynski was the only member of SSFC voting to deny funding that gave CFACT a pass on their missing end-of-the-year report.

Another violation Szarzynski used as a reason for denying funding was the direct service portion of CFACT was not at least 51 percent, which is also required under bylaws.

“CFACT compares themselves to WISPIRG, which I reject that argument because WISPIRG does provide a direct service,” Szarzynski said. “Specifically [WISPIRG does] training as well as political advocacy and they are engaged in getting students these skills.”

Also in the complaint, CFACT claims Szarzynski holds personal biases toward them due to comments he made on his blog, “Forward Thinking,” therefore violating the viewpoint neutrality requirement.

“They tried to point me out specifically and singled me out because of online left-leaning politics,” Szarzynski said. “I think they know that, that justification is bogus, but that is the easiest way to make their case.”

National Director for CFACT Bill Gilles said he feels CFACT was unjustly treated on various accounts and SSFC’s eligibility system was a mess, which they admitted at the time. He added it was also unclear what exactly constitutes as a “direct service.”

According to former SSFC Chair Kurt Gosselin, who did not vote on the funding but sat in on the meeting, to receive funding all groups must comply by the bylaws set by ASM and if even one bylaw is broken they will be denied funding.

When asked what CFACT expects out of the lawsuit, Gilles responded “they need to restore CFACT’s funding in full and restore the system of viewpoint neutral decisions as well as what constitutes a direct service.”