Lost in the slaughter of the slate system are Associated Students, Inc.’s absolutely ridiculous new campaign finance limitations. No, soft money caps were not added. There was no restructuring of the matching funds threshold. The spending limits were just slashed into tiny little pieces.

Now, executive office candidates can spend only $100 in their quest for election. Directorial candidates? $50. That’s not a misprint (as much as I’d like it to be).

This inspires a vision of a new Mastercard ad:

Can of paint: $15.

Stack of fliers: $30.

Plywood sign in the library quad: $40.

Promoting your individual message and personal ideals to 28,000 Sacramento State students in less than a month of campaigning: Priceless (literally).

Did they have campaign spending limits this stringent in sixth-grade class president races? And honestly, when it comes down to April 27-28, will the ASI election be anything different than a sixth-grade class presidential election? Considering the very limited ability to circulate your message on a shoestring budget, it will boil down to a popularity contest.

Everyone will vote for the coolest kid on campus. How is that best for the students?

First and foremost, presidential candidate and slate supporter Joshua Wood is to blame. He says he brought up the seemingly controversial amendment to filibuster the board into postponing completion of the election code again. Josh, does the word “backfire” mean anything to you?

Wood voted against the amendment once it was called to question, finding his own amendment absurd (rightfully so). But the majority of the board voted against common sense and in favor of the amendment.

The ensuing wreckage of this abominable mistake falls on all of their heads. The same directors and executives who had $200 and $300, respectively, at their disposal last spring are giving this year’s candidates the leftover change with which to work.

Peter Ucovich, ASI president and slate opponent, voted for the lower limits. He thinks it will help the elections by giving more people a chance to run.

Is that really a good thing? Look at the recall election — how easy was that ballot to navigate? Some nobody named George Schwartzman got more than 10,000 votes just by virtue of his name’s position on the ballot next to a certain Austrian bodybuilder.

And honestly, who did we know out of all those 130 candidates? The ones with the famous names (the Terminator, Larry Flynt and Gary Coleman), the ones with the famous professions (the lieutenant governor, the porn star, the former baseball commissioner) and the one with the accent (Greek goddess of hybrid vehicles Arianna Huffington).

With the low spending limits and a lack of pseudo-celebrities on campus, whom will we know on our ASI ballot? How many voters will be forced to play “eenie-meenie-mynie-moe” before checking off a box for executive vice president?

It’s a tremendous shame considering this year could’ve witnessed a record-breaking turnout for the ASI election. A likely initiative for permanent Recreational Sports funding will bring in all the club athletes on campus. A possible referendum to finance the proposed recreation center and arena would also bring out every student-athlete along with every student opposed to any more fees.

The new signature requirement to get a measure on the ballot is ridiculously low (only about 300 signatures are needed to qualify a referendum). There could very easily be 50 initiatives to vote on. With the wealth of interesting ideas that may appear on the ballot, this election could’ve made ASI matter to the campus as a whole.

But someone had to spoil the fun. Priceless.