Heritage Foundation's "School Choice" campaign all over D.C. Is this legal?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

The education voucher issue is a touchy subject here in D.C. The Right has successfully convincing many in the black community that vouchers work to lift their kids from failing public schools here, so much so that local black leaders---Democratic leaders---seem to have gulped the perverbial kool-aid. They have joined with Heritage and other right-leaning organizations to start a campaign in support of "school choice" scholarships. Their target is Obama. Apparently, Obama wants to end the voucher program in D.C. which would invalidate many of the existing scholarship programs. Some black parents are outraged. Opportunistic politicians are driven to expediency and selling their souls for a few votes.

So far, Heriage is winning. As I traveled to work from Union Station, there were posters everywhere! All over the Metro station in support of the school choice program, each with faces of smiling black children pleading with Obama and other education officials to keep their scholarships intact.

But my question is how legal is it for Heritage to have their posters plastered all over the walls in public venues?

Antichoice organizations have succeeded as well. They have advertisements all over Metro buses and in other public domains.

Not only is this new trend troubling, I'm wondering if it's legal.

I plan to call Metro's public affairs department to ask questions.

[msongs]

1. the race to the top. get used to it nt

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

2. The D.C. Metro system . . .

. . . sells ad space on its subway station walls to plenty of other private entities. What's the issue?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. I was simply asking a question about the legality. Why are you guys so nasty on this forum?

It's so unnecessary.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

8. I'm sorry if you thought my reply was "nasty," but . . .

. . . I think one has to be cognizant of the fact that, when "conversing" over the Internet, on a site such as this one, it is very easy to misconstrue the apparent "tone" of another person's response.

You asked whether what WMATA was doing, with respect to exhibiting the Heritage Foundation advertisement was "legal." I was merely pointing out (as I see such ads in the Metro system here all the time) that WMATA sells ad space to a wide range of different private entities, and so was questioning why the "legality" of a Heritage Foundation ad would be at "issue." If anything, I might have been expressing a little surprise that someone would ever think that, in this country, such a thing might possibly be "illegal," but that's about it.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

9. In fact, just to show that there's no hard feelings on my part . . .

. . . I see that if you go to the WMATA website (just Google the acronym) and click on the "Business with Metro" link on the lower right-hand side of their website, it'll take you (eventually) to the WMATA policy on advertising. You might find that an easier place to start than trying to get somebody on the phone.

[anigbrowl]

3. Of course it's legal.

If I understand you right, you're not saying they flyposted all over places where nobody is supposed to put adverts, are you? As in, vandalism. Rather you appear to be complaining about the content of the advertising rather than the placement.

If you just don't like the content of the ads and what they're promoting, well that's a totally valid opinion but there's nothing illegal about them promoting their opposite opinion.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. Jesus Christ, I'm just asking a question.

You guys are so rude!!

[anigbrowl]

6. What's rude about it?

I said yes, it's legal. I also acknowledged that your negative opinion of such campaigning was a totally valid one. I didn't call you names or anything, neither did the other poster.

[NYC_SKP]

7. I think your idea to call Metro is the best way to find out.

I don't happen to think it's OK for publicly subsidized programs with advertising space to include political content.

However, I think I've seen political ads on buses and such in some cities, so it would be a matter of DC Metro policy.

If, on the other hand, these are just plastered up like graffiti, Metro should be out removing them.

:patriot:

[EFerrari]

10. I think it is legal but you know something, it's a little weird.

Because doesn't the Heritage Foundation usually use other entities to do this stuff? They try to pretend they're a think tank and not a fascist propaganda mill.