When Law Makers Become Law Breakers...

Just got a release from the Jason Flanary campaign in Fairfax, complaining that Dave Marsden has illegal campaign signage up.  Jason is absolutely right- Fairfax allows signs for 75 days before an election and sells permits for that period.  Right now, the only permit that Marsden would be eligible for since he doesn't have a contested primary is the 75 days before November 8th, meaning he could put signs up August 26th. 

The same applies for Barbara Comstock and Caren Merrick who I have noticed also have illegal signs up already despite not having a primary.

Voters hate these signs- even in the periods where they are legal to put up.  Would be great to see Ray Morrogh make an example out of Marsden, Comstock and Merrick here.

Flanary release below:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                 

FRIDAY, JULY 22, 2011

 

Senator Dave Marsden Violates Fairfax County Law

Illegally posting campaign signs throughout Virginia’s 37^th State Senate District

Centreville, VA – Friday, July 22, 2011 – Today, the Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning confirmed Senator Dave Marsden is in direct violation of the Commonwealth’s Office of Elections’ regulations by posting campaign signs, while not participating in a Primary Election

“Dave Marsden believes election laws apply to everyone else but him.  Last year he didn’t live in the district in which he was running and this year he’s illegally placing signs in around Fairfax County, more than one month before the law allows,” said Jason Flanary, Republican candidate for the State Senate.  “When will Senator Dave Marsden learn that even he has to follow Virginia’s laws?”

The Department of Planning and Zoning confirmed that Marsden had not applied to post signs during a primary election, and that the signs posted throughout the 37^th State Senate District displayed a permit number, #2110960140, that was issued solely for the purpose of the general election. August 25, 2011 is the start date in which candidates participating in a General Election may begin to post signs.

Comments

[tmtfairfax]

Pamela Danner and Barbara Favola also have signs up in McLean and Great Falls.

[DanielK]

Hmmm, good timing for the release as Flanary must have just taken his signs down that were on potions of the Parkway the other day. Kind of wish I took a picture of them now.

[DanielK]

Replace Flanary with Marsden.

Is this a criminal violation Ben or just a civil one where be can be fined? I don't think a Commonwealth would be involved if there's not an actual criminal violation. Also, would be hard to prove if his campaign did this or if it were a volunteer who simply didn't know the laws.

[Not Larry Sabato]

Struggling with reading comprehension everyone?

Favola and Flanary are both allowed signs as they are in contested primaries- and we are within 75 days of those primaries.

I saw some Danner signs when I was in Great Falls this week on private property which is fine- anyone seen any on public property?

[Fairfax Volunteer]

Ben's right about the primary vs. general issue.

That said, DanielK is right about enforcement. In Fairfax County, the only penalty specified in the code is the loss of your $100 security deposit on the permit.

It's a pretty toothless part of the county code, really, and unfortunately everyone knows that neither the police department nor the CA's office have any zeal for enforcing it.

[Gone]

Who is to say that the opposition didnt put those up to directly violate the law? It will be a good argument of consequences ensue.

[martinlomasney]

Laws restricting campaign signs are unenforceable violations of the 1st Amendment.

You know the Bill of Rights,

Mr. Mason's little idea.

Thus, no enforcement.

Thus, the law is a dead letter.

But good try at creating yet another tempest in a teapot against a Democratic official who's endorsed Chris Wade and not Ben's gal pal.

Can't wait to see what you have in store for Vivian Watts and Sharon?

God, 8/23 can't get here fast enough to be rid of Janet and your childish tantrums.

[Freddie]

Oh my! Someone engaging in political speech without the permission of the government!

[DCCyclone]

martinlomasney, not so simple on 1st Amendment. Governments are allowed to impose time/place/manner restrictions on speech, and there's a legal test created by case law and applied case-by-case to determine whether a given restriction meets that test of constitutionality.

To say one may not put campaign signs on public grounds more than a specified number of days before an election is not necessarily unconstitutional. One can argue it either way, it would make a good law school exam question for that reason.

But you're right that this is a tempest in a teapot. No one gives a shit about this.

[Not Larry Sabato]

Actually Cyclone, your district Chair is filing a complaint about this with Fairfax County, so clearly *someone* gives a shit about this.

[truthteller]

Comstock's active support from a number of sketchy operators with ties to the likes of Abramoff, Cheney, DeLay, et al.... and her ties to leading figures in the US Attorney firings and defense of Tom DeLay and other ethically challenged partisans, is far more telling. But the lack of respect for local laws is certainly problematic

[Sandy]

I just wish people would be as concerned about all the real estTe signs that go up each weekend. I suppose the lack of them due to the poor housing market is a plus of the down economy.

[tmtfairfax]

There were Danner signs on the median of Route 123 for several days. I believe some or all were removed.

[JLT]

I would amend DCCyclone's statement to read "no one outside of political insiders and bloggers gives a shit about this". What average voter is going to say "well, I was thinking of voting for candidate x, but his violation of a county ordinance relating to campaign signage has pushed me to the other guy"?

[BroncoBuster]

Sometimes it is better to ask forgiveness than permission

[Not Larry Sabato]

JLT- You would be surprised and it isn't because county rules were violated, but because some people HATE HATE HATE these signs. Blow up that Merrick sign and you can understand why- nice "scenic byway".

[Sandy]

I think this is less about an obscure sign ordnance and more about another anti-Marsden opportunity that is never passed up on this blog...

[Sandy's onto the right track]

Of course you're right, Sandy.

But even more than that, I find it exceedingly unlikely that Dave Marsden either knows about or had anything to do with that sign going up. This is a guy who was out, with volunteers no less, taking down his signs THE DAY AFTER he won his first race and has made removing his signs the day after election day an annual event ever since.

That, to me, gives him more than the benefit of the doubt (not that anybody remotely cares), whereas NLS employs a guilty-until-proven-innocent-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard to anything Marsden-related.

However, I sure do hope Jason Flanary focuses on non-issues like these throughout his campaign (which won't last much longer at this rate), because Marsden will beat him handily and the State Senate will be that much closer to staying Blue.

[Sandy's onto the right track]

Not to belabor the point, but because there's not a chance in hell NLS will post it as an update:

"The Marsden campaign is working to get the signs removed, said campaign manager Kiel Brunner.

'We had never directed our staff or supporters to place the signs,' Brunner said. 'I think this is a case of overeager supporters.'

http://fairfaxstation.patch.com/articles/marsden-campaign-signs-violated-zoning-laws

[Waylon Jennings]

I've been working professionally in campaigns around the country for about ten years and I have very mixed feelings about this.
New England states have laws that prohibit displaying signs (even on private property) outside of X days befroe each election.
Other states and localirties have laws that fine campaigns for placing signs on public property regardless of when they are placed.
I think that a private citizen should be able to place a sign on their property year-round if they so desire. I also think that placing signs on public property (anytime) is basically littering. The problem with enforcing the "littering", in states where they enforce it, is that I've seen campaigns steal, obtain or otherwise procure their opponents' yard signs and then "sign the shit" out of public right-of-way as to inflict fines on their opponent.
This issue is more complicated than it seems, but my view is that private property should be okay anytime and that public property should be okay never. But unless you actually see the person placing a sign it would be hard to enforce.
Besides, anyone who has ever worked on a campaign knows that people who place signs on public property do so because they can't get enough private locations. These candidates need to (a) build an organization (b) get support and (c) identify "hard" yard sign locations. If your candidate is worth a damn, it ain't that hard.

[Waylon Jennings]

The "X" did not mean 10, it was meant to indicate a variable bc each state/ locality is different.

[Not Bubby]

Only a walking vagina complains about political yard signs.

Oh, wait...it's Ben we're talking about. The political blogosphere's biggest, fattest walking vagina. Never mind.

[change]

I agree with WJ, I hate those signs on public property; they are a mess...

[NotJohnSMosby]

So, in the same week, Ben gets dramatic over candidate volunteers leaving "sorry I missed you" cards at peoples' doors and for volunteers putting up a few signs on a couple of roads a few months earlier than they should.

Will someone deliver a big bottle of Pamprin and a home enema kit over to Ben's house? He's either PMSing or is extremely constipated this week.

[notraybutaca]

Actually, martin and dank make good points. To be an enforceable ordinance, the locality has to also enforce it against non-political signs, like the ones you typically see littering the lots of convenience stores, fast food stores, etc. The locality's constitutional ability to "clean up" the community must not select the speech it picks on.

[Sam]

Having been a very low-level volunteer on many campaigns when I was in high school, I often got the "sign placing" job. In each campaign I worked on (except one, which I won't call out as that politician lost anyways and has never been heard from again), I was always told exactly where and when I was and was not allowed to place signs, and I followed it strictly. It greatly annoys me to see so many people just completely ignore these rules.

That being said, I do have to say the average voter doesn't care (Ben may be right about voters hating the signs altogether, but that has nothing to do with whether or not they are legally placed). Moreover, based on my experience, it's also very possible to me that this is the laziness/ingenuity of high school students, with the candidate completely uninvolved.

[NotJohnSMosby]

It's actually dumb to put signs up this early, since they'll get taken down when the medians get mowed - or by a nice thunderstorm.

[Not Dave Marsden]

Still waiting for an NLS apology on this one. At the very least he should have asked the Marsden campaign for a comment - that would have been the minimal journalistic requirement.

That he has a vendetta against Marsden is pretty obvious. I don't mind the one he has against Cooch, cause that guy is looney. But Marsden is, as The Post has said, a serious individual. He's pragmatic and appears diligent and hard-working. He isn't extreme. He may be personally ambitious. None of these is necessarily a bad trait...

[DCCyclone]

NotJohnSMosby, when you're a challenger needing name rec, having signs up for awhile and then taken down is not that big a deal.

And Ben, the district Chair's complaint is not going to move any voters. As far as people hating road signs, no I won't be surprised, it's simply not a voting issue. People say they hate negative ads, too, but negative ads help, they very seldom and only situationally hurt. What people superficially say they like or don't like about campaigns has no affect on their voting behavior.

[Concerned in VA]

You have indicated that Pam Danner’s signs are on private property and  you don’t have an issue with those.  Comstock’s signs are also on private property, so there apparently is no issue here after all.