Submitted by PlentyCommission166 t3_z01i63 in Maine
Yeah, maybe the opposing party could save some to put out some to do financial sabotage, but I'd still hold the party that manufactured them responsible for the fine. Accountability, baby. Hell, maybe fine all the political parties if any signs are left out, just to be fair.
Give that fine money to a dedicated team of cleanup crew for roadside beautification. We could end up the cleanest state in the nation.
I'd just like to see them banned, period. Pointless plastic waste.
e: not only that, but to me? They butt up against the spirit of our (awesome) anti-billboard laws. I do not want to see this shit. I will take any and all reasons to not be assaulted with advertising everywhere I go.
Outlaw billboards = yes, outlaw political signs = no. It's not logical. One caveat though. If someone wants one in their yard fine. But public roads/corners should be outlawed. How do we make this happen?
Agree it gets a bit much. They are supposed to be removed within one week after the election, but I don’t think the law has any teeth to it. Perhaps a civil offense?
Found this from Yarmouth DOT. Signage rules
The people who would need to write and pass this law are the same people who would be regulated by it. It SHOULD be a law, but it never will I'm afraid.
I worked on a campaign 20 years ago, and I was under the impression that there was a law where you had x amount of days to get them off of public property, or the campaign would be fined. I think it was like 2 weeks, but I don’t honestly remember the details. I do remember having a giant pile of losing candidate political signs outside of my tiny apartment though.
Edit: autocorrect fail.
I thought the same.
Agree. Fuck. The. Signs.
I think the signs on public land should just be illegal, period. If you can't sell your campaign without having your name plastered in every city park and main street in the state, you aren't getting my vote anyways
Has anyone ever said “this sign makes a good point. I’m voting for them”
You would be correct
I love being able to tell which neighbors are smeg heads. But environmentally it’s such a waste. Personally, I’d also love it if people stopped basing their personality on their politics.
Unpopular opinion here but signs show a few things: 1) that the person is putting effort into their campaign, 2) that people believe in the person enough to give money (the successful local campaign I worked on was mostly driven by small donors), 3) the character of the elected or non-elected candidate can be ascertained by how quickly they remove their signs.
I also think they’re aesthetically an eyesore and also just end up at the dump. But for a few weeks, we’re reminded that we live in a democracy where people raise their hand for public service.
Maybe not national or even state wide races. But for town council or school board it can at least be a conversation starter between neighbors.
That said, get them off of public medians.
Problem is, you'll have sore losers or supporters intentionally placing opponent signs after the election to get them fined.
I asked the state about this. Lawn signs on private property erected by the owner are protected first amendment speech, and political signs on public property can't be banned without banning all temporary signage on public property. This includes signs for blueberry stands and such. You can't have stricter rules for political signs.
I think there’s a 6-week limit signs can remain up (from the time of posting). Just based on a quick Google.
That seems like a stretch. Although if I saw someone with a LePage sign and a town council sign. I would automatically assume that I don’t agree with town council candidate. Guilt by association.
That said, it’s a huge environmental waste. I can’t imagine the collective tonnage of waste thrown out after Election Day.
The snakes stick their head above the grass, and then you can see that they are indeed, snakes.
By banning all temporary signs in the public right of way.
Very quickly, I see supporters of the losing side placing hoarded and stolen signs from the winning side where spite-fines will accrue for them. It's always the unintended consequences that bite these good ideas on the ass.
There is a law that could fine the candidate but it’s just never enforced
There is a law: "Temporary signs placedwithin the public right-of-way for a maximum of 12 weeks per calendaryear, except that a temporary sign may not be placed within the publicright-of-way for more than 6 weeks from January 1st to June 30th or formore than 6 weeks from July 1st to December 31st. A temporary sign maynot be placed within 30 feet of another temporary sign bearing the sameor substantially the same message. A temporary sign may not exceed 4feet by 8 feet in size. A sign under this paragraph must include or bemarked with the name and address of the individual, entity ororganization that placed the sign within the public right-of-way and thedate the sign was erected within the public right-of-way"
>Personally, I’d also love it if people stopped basing their personality on their politics.
Aren't you doing that by calling your neighbors "smeg heads" because they don't agree with you politically?
I'm a sign manufacturer and I don't like this sentiment. People pay me to make what they want. Are some stupid, yes but whatever floats their boat. I just make them, there should be no responsibility on my part, unless I was also hired to install and remove them, which we never are because it's a horrible idea to be a company and make political statements by installing political signs.
Support your local sign company!
Which means no more yard sale notices, open house signs for realtors, farm stands, lost cats and dogs posters, lost KID posters...
Exactly. That is what it would take in order to not single out political speech, unfortunately.
All the candidates I've personally known go around and collect their signs a few days after the election (and they've had a chance to sleep). Those signs are not free to make and they will save them for their next campaign.
Unfortunately, this would completely screw over candidates with lower budgets who already had it hard enough. Say what you want about what you think the effectiveness is, but there truly is no better way for smaller campaigns to efficiently get their name heard.
It's rather silly that we constantly bitch about big money candidates but then want to take measures like this that will only screw over their smaller opponents more.
And if the candidate is publicly funded many,if not all, of those signs are paid with our tax dollars. So how about in an effort to get those eyesores removed, they start withholding funding for that candidate on the next campaign if their signs aren’t picked up in time. If the candidate doesn’t run again apply the deduction to the affiliated party.
I have a major issue with lazy candidates who think lots of signs = lots of votes. I get the need for name recognition but go knock on doors to get noticed.
I don’t have a pickup truck loaded up with political flags. A yard full of signs. Not even a single bumper sticker. Notice that nothing about my comment said what my political beliefs were? Because it’s a small enough part of my life that I can keep that shit to myself for 10 seconds.
I don't think their would be broad support for that. And I think you would still run up against the 1st Amendment even though it applied to everything.
https://youtu.be/epbOHloSpZM ( NSFW) curse word..
I know… that’s the point, and why it won’t happen.
“But I don’t like the product people pay you to make! That makes it your fault! Damn you and everything you stand for!”
We all agree that they just end up in the garbage, but they serve a purpose in our republic. Pay the man/woman best suited for the task at hand and have a good day.
[deleted]
Agreed. Legally they can't be up in public ways more than six weeks before an election, and the local campaigns in my area always collect theirs within a week of election day. One state senator had all his collected the day after. Funny how the ones that stick around the longest always seem to be primarily red.
Why wait?
In the same way you don't fine oil refinery workers when there's a spill, you fine the company for poor practices.
"But I make pointless shit! What about me?"
IDK dude go do something worthwhile. IDGAF
If you can’t get rid of them outright, leave it to private property. Having them plastered all over public property is the problem. But yes, get them the fuck gone. The most boomer way of marketing and it sucks.
For me it goes something like:
"Oh, that person in that home supports that candidate? I wonder why. Let me look that up."
Happens that way occasionally, but usually I already know what my options are.
If only it were that simple. As it is, we already have people stealing / ripping up political signs of the politicians that they don't support. These typically end up in a dumpster, river, or tossed in the woods somewhere. Now all they'd do is save the signs until after the election and then put them back out. Can you imagine how many voters stole or vandalized Mills or Lepage signs? Now imagine what those same people would do if they knew that they could cause financial harm to someone simply by putting those signs back up in the middle of the night, as opposed to just trashing them. How would you go about proving by preponderance of the evidence who the responsible party is? It would be a nightmare.
Additionally, in order to make this a law or even a city ordinance, you need the politicians to sign off on it. How many do you think are willing to pass a law or ordinance that specifically targets them and only them?
Source: I got stuck dealing with these theft and criminal mischief cases every political season when the politicians would complain about someone destroying their signs.
It’s nothing like that at all.
A person placed the signs. Fine the person, not the party.
Right, private property only and what you deem appropriate on public property. Makes sense.
I thought my old neighbors having thin blue flags out front and meth parties out back was somewhat amusing.
I think that’s the best case scenario. And even at that it feels wasteful to produce millions of signs. On the off chance someone might not just completely ignore them.
If you can’t then please explain his billboard sign banning works…?
You’ll break Poliquin’s bank account!
Better idea: fine them before the election too
My guess is that the billboard law doesn't "ban" signs, it just limits the size etc of signs.
Not what I deem appropriate, just common sense. These signs are the fucking worst. Anyone who is making voting decisions based on signs shouldn’t be able to vote.
I agree, and how about $100 per sign just to put those eyesores up in the first place.
True, but IIRC campaigns are also good at spending every last nickel and being destitute/ un-fine-able.
I helped break down signs for a local candidate. The bent metal "wickets" went in the metal dumpster while the good ones are being saved for the next race. (We assemble them with new signs from the printer ourselves.) The plastic cardboardy stuff is theoretically recyclable, and went in the recycle bin. It's as recyclable as anything else that went in that bin, which is dubious.
Billboards are permanent. Temporary signs have size and time limitations
Ha! I just saw this and posted about the same. Absolutely agree with you.
They need to be done away with however it can be done.
That's a big part of my thought on this.
I mean TBH, most signs are less obnoxious than billboards. Your eyes should be on the road and not letting you lollygag at signs, anyway.
But a rule akin to not leaving your Christmas tree up past a certain date would be nice.
You could limit the number of signs allowed in any one area - after all, the blueberry people and the bait people aren't going to have more than a few signs. Same for yard sales, charity events, etc.
There are only Bruce Poliquin signs in my neighborhood. A lot of them. At $50 each, he would owe thousands.
[deleted]
I agree 🤷🏼♀️ has a political sign ever influenced someone’s choice in voting? All that money could be better spent INVESTING in the communities where they want votes.
Campaigning for better education and after school programs? Dump your sign/campaign money into those programs and do interviews and press releases on what it’s like PUTTING YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS! I’d vote for that.
I would sign a petition banning signs all together unless it’s on private property
I assume by person you mean candidate, and despite all the people in here with brilliant ideas to save our public ways, this is already how it works. Some candidates just don't care.
It's not the printers' fault. Fine the CANDIDATES.
> can't be banned without banning all temporary signage on public property
I think what you meant to say was can be banned, provided the rule is applied evenly for everyone. Makes perfect sense.
Then fine the candidate.
If they don’t care that just means the fine isn’t big enough.
Maine has it pretty good. Here in DC they stay up forever. Our primary was in June and a lot of those signs are still up.
They do! I agree with you.
I agree with the general sentiment that political signs are BS and shouldn’t be allowed in public spaces. With that said, our justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty, so unless you are able to prove who put the signs up then you can’t really convict anyone of anything.
It's 48 hours.
They certainly seem more thoughtful or informed than your suggestion. Just because they believe your approach wouldn't work doesn't mean they're saying nothing should be done. Stop being disingenuous in your conversations and you may find them more enjoyable or fruitful.
No, what I said was correct. You can't ban political signs on public property without also banning all other types of temporary signs.
Yes, and what I said was also correct. But your bias clearly differs from mine.
True dat. Surely these signs could be restricted under the same premise as other restrictions on single-use plastics?
Or maybe we could mandate they be recyclable and then give $0.05 a pop for whoever brings them in.
Edit: The cost of the signs can be surprisingly high.
Ban them or give at lest 3 to 5 days to pick up. I don't disagree with either method. One issue is who is going to do the head count on these? Are we going to create more short time jobs to count and enforce the proposed post? Don't forget it's the elected officials that make the laws so I don't feel they will ever be banned.
"the party that manufactured them" man, the political party.
Since the political party does not "manufacturer" the signs, the "party that manufactured them" would be the printers.
The signs are the responsibility of the individual candidate, not the printer, and not the party. This is why every (legally) placed sign in a public way has the candidates name and contact, or that of their campaign treasurer, in small print on the bottom, either handwritten or a sticker. With the date the sign was placed.
It is the candidate that designs, contracts with a printer and pays for the signs. It is the candidate that places them or has them placed with their campaign staff and volunteers. The only thing the political party has to do with them is provide a central point of distribution for the candidates to supply campaign material.
Yes, I do know how this is done because I'm involved with it at my municipal and county levels, with both individual candidates and the political party.
You have the right idea, you're just specifying the wrong target,
Apparently they have some sway. https://www.npr.org/2022/10/01/1124484573/midterm-elections-political-signs
there were more “enough is enough” signs in portland than all other signs combined. it’s obvious the sign race is just another matter of who has more resources
maybe do something productive instead
millions of dollars came into maine from out of state this cycle. “people believe in this person enough to give them money” doesn’t really signal that they have your best interest in mind anymore and in some cases is a good signal to the opposite.
Collect a truckload, find out where they live and leave them in their yard.
Of course they work. It’s a good way to raise awareness for candidates that aren’t constantly in the news.
/r/UnexpectedRedDwarf
There needs to be a timeline as an all signs need to be picked up by November 24 and after that date there will be fines
Especially the signs like frank Roma had where its a cutout of a literal person. Every new sign he put up had me scared someone was going to jump in front of my car.
I use them for target practice. Tape a target on front and good to go.
[deleted]
Yes!!
It is a Supreme Court decision.
There was a Supreme Court case about signs, it’s a first amendment issue. Roadways are considered the public realm. So unless they’re causing a safety hazard, states and municipalities can’t outlaw them.
I think recyclability is lie (or at least an exaggeration) that convinces us it’s ok to use plastic so we don’t have to modify our behavior.
I hate to stay this, but maybe we should stick to internet adds that cost a few watts to deliver.
For now 1-2% is a pretty big difference in a tight race. I wonder how that number would change as the demographics that rely less on the internet age out.
Thanks. 9 hours in someone gets the joke.
As stated multiple times above: there is a law. Can't ban signs without other repercussions for free speech. Worked on a campaign and it comes down to three things:
signs are a waste of campaign $ generally but the "base" i.e., core supporters/volunteers love them so they print them.
any $ not spent on signs would end up in your mailbox as political mailers.
both parties equally suck on both 1 & 2.
Such is the way in politics in this country. Support 3rd party candidates and campaign finance reform.
Personally, I block literally every internet ad.
IMO, I have the right to decide what gets my attention.
>rather
Yeah, but I think people recognize that presence on that scale just means that the group has more money than other groups. And like, it worked? (sadly) Only one DSA measure passed.
But having the exposure also really helps smaller candidates, as people just seeing that they exist can be worth a lot more than it would be in like a Mills/Lepage setting, where people's votes are locked.
Not just those political signs but those sketchy “we buy houses” or “cash for catalytic converters”. I’ve seen a few catalytic ones pop up in Auburn and I throw them away every time I see them.
No way in hell I’m gonna let hard working folks get fleeced for their cats just because some grifter is incentivizing it.
This is idiotic. Fine the politicians who had them placed there instead
I agree that the signs can be annoying. But this is like suing McDonald’s or any other company when consumers litter their products. Sign manufacturers aren’t at fault here.
> Your eyes should be on the road and not letting you lollygag at signs, anyway.
If the signs were designed to be viewed by motorists, I'd agree with your shifting blame onto the driver. But they are targeted AT drivers, so I'd leave blame exactly where it is, on the signs.
I just wasn't around on reddit yesterday.
Short answer, yes. Longer answer, it follows the exact same method as marketing does. Has a television commercial ever made you immediately get up and rush out to purchase the product? Probably not. But the commercial plays over and over and over again, to the point you get sick of it. And then you go to the store. And you need hemorrhoid creme. And the only brand you know of is Preparation H. Not sure why, it just sticks out in your brain that it is the best to use for your certain situation. So you buy that because it really hurts to sit on your ass and you gotta get back to watching that TV.
It's all marketing. If there were three names on the ballot and you don't follow politics very much, you will be more likely to pick the name you heard and saw more often.
Which is precisely why advertising on tv and lawn signs is not good for the democratic process. Brand recognition puts the power of choice in the consumers hands when they go to the butt cream aisle. It puts the power in someone else’s when they use marketing to influence election decisions of the ignorant
Not like any of this is going to change, though
So landfill it is
[deleted] t1_ix34mij wrote
[deleted]