Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Antnee83 t1_ix357yt wrote

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.

351

bluestargreentree t1_ix3bcej wrote

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.

78

theshoegazer t1_ix3ru87 wrote

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.

12

Shh-NotUntilMyCoffee t1_ix3mknt wrote

If you can’t then please explain his billboard sign banning works…?

2

bluestargreentree t1_ix3nwbz wrote

Billboards are permanent. Temporary signs have size and time limitations

12

WaterWaterH2O t1_ix3n0qc wrote

My guess is that the billboard law doesn't "ban" signs, it just limits the size etc of signs.

8

civildisobedient t1_ix3w72c wrote

> 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.

−4

bluestargreentree t1_ix3ydo1 wrote

No, what I said was correct. You can't ban political signs on public property without also banning all other types of temporary signs.

9

hateboss t1_ix3hfkj wrote

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.

18

bigbluedoor t1_ix45lid wrote

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

5

ForeverTaric t1_ix68hqg wrote

>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.

0

ThatGuy_K t1_ix3imet wrote

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.

13

Davit4444 t1_ix3ku23 wrote

Right, private property only and what you deem appropriate on public property. Makes sense.

−3

ThatGuy_K t1_ix3n732 wrote

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.

9

Catg923 t1_ix3st5n wrote

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.

3

WalkerBRiley t1_ix82svd wrote

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.

1

Catg923 t1_ix8wsiv wrote

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

1

DidDunMegasploded t1_ix3r7xl wrote

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.

1

WalkerBRiley t1_ix82c35 wrote

> 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.

1