Ideally, we should be able to treat our fellow citizens the same no matter which candidate they favor. But when the political divide gets wider and wider, and rhetoric gets hotter and hotter, I can't help but wonder whether the money I would spend in the store might not end up supporting candidates I oppose.
Would it be better if they left the sign off? Then they still might use my payments to support candidates I oppose, but I wouldn't know. (Well I could look at the APOC reports.) Does posting a sign on your business constitute an in-kind donation? What if Conoco-Phillips put a huge banner down the side of their building?
I remember once asking the owner of an ethnic restaurant about the large poster of a candidate in the window. "The candidate eats here often and asked to put it up. We couldn't say no." Notice how skillfully the owner did not tell me if they supported the candidate or not.
Do such posters help a candidate? Do yard signs help a candidate? I would gess they do help persuade the undecideds. If you see lots of signs, especially if you know and respect the people whose yards they are in, you get a feeling that this person has widespread support. Especially if you want to fit in, be like everyone else. But some people may be turned off by the signs, especially if they are put up illegally.* (See below) I tried finding some articles on this, but didn't come up with anything recent. I guess people just assume it works.
For people who feel strongly against a candidate, seeing that candidate's poster in the window of a store they are about to enter, surely has to cause them to pause. Do you tell the owner why or just leave quietly?
The owner has the right to express his or her opinion. Is not shopping at a store that posts a sign for the candidate you dislike a political boycott? I think that going seeking the information about which candidates which business owners support and then telling people to avoid those businesses moves more into the boycott territory. Customers have a right to shop there or not. Business owners can support candidates many ways. If they want to post signs at their business, they have to consider the possible impact on their business.
But I do think the restaurant owner I mentioned above could have declined, saying that they didn't want to offend potential customers by having any political signs. They could then offer to have a sign at their house if they did support the candidate. Or, conversely, they could also allow the opponent to post a sign, though the opponent would probably assume they support the other candidate and wouldn't ask.
*While trying to get some information for this post I did find this about putting signs on roadways from the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities:
1. Campaign signs placed within the State’s road and highway rights-of-way are deemed unauthorized encroachments under AS 19.25.200 – 19.25.250 and will be removed by DOT crews without notification. Vehicles parked in rights-of-way that are used to display political advertisements are also prohibited and subject to removal. Political campaign signs are considered outdoor advertising.2. AS 19.25.105(a) states, “Outdoor advertising may not be erected or maintained within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way…” This section deals with advertising outside the corridor, but also addresses advertising that maybe placed within the corridor on bus benches or trash receptacles. If the sign is on private property, DOT must provide a 30-day written notice of removal to the sign owner and property owner.
"(Well I could look at the APOC reports.)" For the photo above, APOC will do you no good; it's a state agency, it has no info on who gives $$$ to Stevens or any of the other candidates for federal office (you gotta go to fec.gov for those).
ReplyDeleteThanks Brendan. I knew that, but I had so much trouble finding the right links on the APOC website and I was tired, that I forget to link the federal site.
ReplyDeleteThe link to the data is there in plain sight on the APOC site, but not where I thought it ought to be.
Most of the APOC site seems aimed at politicians and candidates who want to file rather than the public who want to get information.
On the first page, in the "How Do I..." column it doesn't link to the page with all the information. It only has a link to "View legislators' financial disclosure reports" which is a fairly clunky search tool - you have to type in the names of the legislators instead of choosing from a list. This is useful information - the financial disclosure forms the candidates and legislators submit - but what about all the other info?
That is hidden in the Quick Links column under searchable Online Databases. That is fairly clear, but I saw the tab on top first that says "Public Information" and went there.
Nothing in the four headings on the left - APOC Meetings, Training & Reports, About APOC, and Related Resources gives what I was looking for. (Well the last one gets you to the link you added.) Again, it is on the right under Quick Links in Searchable Online Databases.
In hindsight, that is obvious. It would be interesting to see how many people find it right away and how many think there should be a clearer link under Public Info. Most of the Public Info links are for politicians, not for the public.
If Searchable Online Databases was a tab on top, that would be much better.
So many people don't vote, Steve. The greatest influence in my life was a debate coach in the 1980's. She was a shameless card carrying member of the Democratic party and we were mostly young of Republicans. (The make-up has probably shifted.) She told us over and over that a vote states that "I as an individual have a say in the process." At the time Anchorage was Republican heavy. Time after time we razzed her when her candidates didn't get in and she would say to us, "This does not mean that I don't still have a voice! I will be at the meetings and I will speak up when I have a concern." She was. She taught us to speak up and I think that I learned more from her loosing than had her candidates won.
ReplyDeleteI think that any store owner who displays a sign for someone should be patronized. They are VOTING. They are participating in something that is unique to America. Letting each man have a say-- and then each woman, regardless of income or land owning status was a scary proposition for a lot of other countries when we started to implement it over here.
Politics should be fun and exciting! The divisiveness that it's creating is ugly. So someone wins who I don't like-- well, I'll be buying him tea and scones at the coffee shop and chatting him up about what I think and why I think it and how it will be better for everyone. Even if we don't like what the other has to say, surely there are things we agree on. And Bell's Nursery-- Mike is a great guy and a smart businessman. What if you go in there with your jacket that supports Ted's opposition and buy a bunch of stuff and speak of your views with him while he loads your truck up? I can't imagine anyone not liking you. Even if he doesn't support your person, he will have respect for your views and. . . you may get his public support later. (This isn't just for Bell's-- it's for any business.)
Now-- I will retreat to my little Utopia.
If I owned a business there is no way I would post campaign related paraphernalia.
ReplyDeleteSo far, there are two places I decided not to patronize because of campaign signs. One was an auto repair place in Palmer, and the other was an ice cream drive-thru. Both had Menard signs.