Political signs -- Pollution or democracy?

New London City Councilor Mike Buscetto, the endorsed candidate in the race for the Democratic nomination for mayor, today asked the man challenging him in the Sept. 13 primary, Daryl Justin Finizio, to take a no-campaign-signs pledge.

Finizio quickly agreed, with a small caveat (see his response to Buscetto at the end of this blog).

It will be interesting to see if other candidates take the pledge as New London moves into the general election.

In his no-signs request, Buscetto calls campaign signs "visual clutter" and said agreeing not to use them will "promote a greener and cleaner New London."

As for me, I don't have a problem with political signs. They are a reminder to people who only peripherally follow politics that there is an election coming up and they might think about paying attention. They are a way for homeowners to show their political allegiances. They are a basic part of the democratic process, though I shudder to think some folks might actually base their vote on a sign.

Others, I know, disagree and are bothered by the untidiness these signs create. The charges and counter-charges of sign theft are about as silly as politics get. And some abuse the system by placing signs on public property, which should not be used to favor any candidate. Most aggravating is the failure to pick up signs after Election Day, with losers usually the bigger offenders.

But democracy is messy. Instead of campaign signs, dictators put up huge pictures of themselves. I'll take a yard full of colorful signs with names and slogans for various candidates.

And even if a candidate did not use formal signs, that would not prevent supporters from putting up their own home-made versions. (A point Finizio made in his response to Buscetto -- below). Should a candidate be in a position of urging enthusiastic backers not to display their support? I think not.

But what do you think? Should candidates agree not to put up campaign signs? Or should this long-held, if at times obnoxious, tradition continue?

Meanwhile, here's the e-mail Finizio sent to Buscetto:

Mr. Buscetto,

I commend you on an excellent idea! We may disagree on many things in this campaign, but this is not one of them.

Lawn signs are a clutter and a terrible expense to any campaign. I have always believed it a waste of donor funds to produce them. You are very right to point out their environmental impact as well. The fuel costs to produce them, the materials, are both negative in their effect on our environment.

I would only make one exception regarding political signage. My supporters are all volunteers and many are artists. I know several are making their own homemade signs for their own yards, windows, or businesses. I believe each individual citizen has a fundamental first amendment right to advocate for their own candidates in what manner they chose and I will not tell them they can't.

So I agree that no lawn signs will be professionally produced by my campaign, but the people of New London may choose to make their own signs for any candidate, which I believe is their basic democratic right.

Thank you very much for making this proposal. I look forward to the rigorous debate ahead.

Daryl Justin Finizio

And Buscetto's reply:

Glad we agree on something and looking forward to the next 29 days.