Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Coachtzu t1_iwlbina wrote

Someone said this as a joke a while ago, I would love to see legislation making it a requirement for candidates to be responsible for taking the signs down from public property or face a fine of some sort.

93

Rincewindisahero OP t1_iwlccse wrote

I know if I left my business signs just dotted around vermont I would get a fine for sure. I understand it takes a while but it’s been over a week since the election and aren’t politicians all about doing things? Getting things done? I know I sound a bit like a Karen.

32

Coachtzu t1_iwlg0rs wrote

They had the infrastructure to put them all up, they can find the resources to take em all down imo

29

currentlyacathammock t1_iwogbox wrote

Well, it's a catch 22... If they get elected, they could be held accountable. If they lose the election, "it's not my fault there's trash everywhere - must be the fault of the people in power"

2

sad0panda t1_iwm7uak wrote

Like they have in New Hampshire?

> 664:17 Placement and Removal of Political Advertising. – No political advertising shall be placed on or affixed to any public property including highway rights-of-way or private property without the owner's consent. All political advertising shall be removed by the candidate no later than the second Friday following the election unless the election is a primary and the advertising concerns a candidate who is a winner in the primary.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/664/664-21.htm

> The court, upon petition of the attorney general, may levy upon any person who violates the provisions of RSA 664:16-a or the provisions of RSA 664:17 relative to removing, defacing, or destroying political advertising on private property a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $1,000 per violation

My read on that is the candidate is liable for $1000 per sign they fail to remove.

9

Coachtzu t1_iwma85h wrote

Interesting, I read that as it being a $1000 fine to remove or deface a political sign on public or (someone else's) private property without their consent. Not a $1000 fine for the politician if they don't remove them. Could be mistaken though.

12

sad0panda t1_iwme8hl wrote

Yeah, I think that's the intent as well, but the language of the penalty section just refers to "the provisions of RSA 664:17 relative to removing" so I can see how it could be broadly interpreted to mean either someone who removes a sign when they aren't authorized to or a candidate who fails to remove their own sign.

9

Kiernanstrat t1_iwm2uk3 wrote

Unfortunately it would just be too easy for someone to move or put up signs that the candidate isn't aware of.

6

Optimized_Orangutan t1_iwm3w1t wrote

So that will discourage them from making the signs to begin with. Malloy getting his ass handed to him despite his mad sign game is all the case study we need to know that they are a massive waste with no practical upside... So fine them enough where it's not worth even making the signs to begin with and we get both of those birds stoned at once.

11

Kiernanstrat t1_iwm4c62 wrote

I'd love it if political signs were outlawed but I don't think this particular issue is worth creating and enforcing a law over.

1

Ok-Title-270 t1_iwmhoh9 wrote

You'd love to have our first amendment rights taken away? It's so important that they put it first

−8

KITTYONFYRE t1_iwmphlq wrote

is our current lack of billboards taking away our first amendment right? no. I don't think banning political signs (or at least, banning these signs spewed out everywhere by everyone) is infringing on that right.

8

Ok-Title-270 t1_iwmu44c wrote

Not allowing commercial advertisement on a rented billboard is entirely different than not allowing individual political discourse on private property

−3

Coachtzu t1_iwon1fp wrote

I think this conversation was revolving around the placement of these signs on public property. Nobody really cares if someone leaves their Malloy signs up in their front lawn, it's the fact they're strewn up and down the roadways.

3

KITTYONFYRE t1_iwmullt wrote

by that logic, why can't i individually have a sign for myself as a baker on my private property?

2

Ok-Title-270 t1_iwqdifa wrote

Because you're advertising a business, which is trade meaning the government has the right to regulate that. They do not have the right to regulate your speech in terms of expressing political or other opinions

1

KITTYONFYRE t1_iwqe2q8 wrote

Fine, want to go put out your own political signs? Go for it. Want to hire a business to do so? Or pay someone to do so? Not allowed

I dunno. You're making sense, and I'm just barfing onto my keyboard. I haven't put a ton of thought into this exactly, but there should be some sort of restriction on this stuff. It's just such a waste.

1

Coachtzu t1_iwm3602 wrote

Yeah that's a good point. There has to be something beyond just "oh he lost let's let the snowplows get em" though lol

3

Formal_Coyote_5004 t1_iwn4v3s wrote

Omg that’s like the ultimate walk of shame

3

Coachtzu t1_iwn89fo wrote

Ultimate walk of shame would be the loser has to pick up everyone else's signs too!

6

Formal_Coyote_5004 t1_iwn8oun wrote

Yessss! Well… there are multiple losers right? I just imagine them all scrambling like rats. But honestly they should be responsible for these dumb signs. It really is littering. Also I’ve never really been convinced that signs like this are a good method of persuasion… I’ve never seen one of these signs and been like “oh yeah definitely voting for them!”

5

Coachtzu t1_iwn9zhd wrote

I think they should be held liable for anyone in their race lol. So like Malloy is responsible for the welch and Malloy signs.

Totally agree it's littering.

I think there is actually some evidence it does work in terms of people being predisposed to not want to be the odd man out. You drive down the street and it's all Trump signs, you might feel like you should vote a certain way to fit into the community, or vice versa if it's a bunch of Bernie or Biden signs.

2