A point of potential conflict in the Government of the Student Body’s bylaws was brought up in a resolution introduced at its Wednesday night meeting.

A GSB finance bylaw states any organization receiving designated student fees has to “provide a broad tangible benefit to the university community.”

One senator said the bylaw is too vague, leaving it up to interpretation, which could lead GSB to violate a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Southworth.

In the case, University of Wisconsin student Scott Southworth objected to a portion of his student fee money funding a campus gay, lesbian and bisexual group. Southworth said the use of his money to fund a group whose views he disagreed with was a violation of his First Amendment right.

The court ruled in the university’s favor, saying it is inevitable fees will subsidize speech some students find objectionable.

The ruling states if a university determines its mission is well served by students being able to engage in discussion on a wide variety of issues, it may impose mandatory student fees. However, the court said the university does have to make some attempt to protect students’ First Amendment rights by requiring a viewpoint of neutrality when allocating funds.

Andrew Tugan, liberal arts and science senator and author of the bill, said he believes because this viewpoint of neutrality is not present in the bylaw, the university is open to lawsuits.

“Broad and tangible can be open to interpretation, and could be used in a biased manner,” he said.

Tugan said the university is subject to the rulings because the way fees are structured and distributed is similar to the University of Wisconsin’s.

“I’m just acting to change it before a potential suit comes up,” he said.

Tugan said current and past objections to funding Cuffs prompted his bill.

If GSB had decided not to fund the group, it could have been argued its decision was biased and lacked the court’s mandated viewpoint on neutrality, he said.

“Cuffs could have used the ruling and won if they weren’t funded,” he said.

He said viewpoint neutrality will be better ensured by adding a bylaw stating, “The organization shall have a primary purpose related to the university community or shall exist to serve and/or educate.”

However, GSB Finance Director David Boike said he is worried changing the bylaw will greatly hurt GSB’s ability to subjectively decide whether to fund groups.

“There has to be some sort of subjective reasoning in a funding decision because without the broad tangible benefit, part of which allows for subjective reasoning, there would be no limit to what [GSB] can fund,” he said.

“Students’ funds could be used for a multitude of reasons, such as funding a farm in Texas. I can’t see why a government should be forced into funding something.”

The bill has been referred to the Finance Committee for consideration.