The annual Political Lawn Sign Calamity is upon us. And it is particularly offensive this year.

Job seekers from president to dogcatcher are displaying their names and desired offices by means of painted, daubed, smeared, colored, varnished, dyed, stained, printed – and universally objectionable – cardboard, wood or paper signs. Although referred to as lawn signs, these embarrassments seem to be located only at intersections, roadways or other publicly owned and maintained locations. Few or none are actually on private lawns.

And they are beyond plentiful, well past nuisance, more than unsightly, exceeding good taste and on the far side of common sense. They have become a clutter and a hazard – an embarrassment to the republic.

While applicants for political employment at all levels seem to avail themselves of these burrs under the saddle of the viewing public, by far the leading criminal in this eruption of bad taste is the Maine Legislature – a body two-and-a-half times larger than California’s lawmaking body. Because it feels that we need “clean elections,” it donates millions to legislative campaigns. (There shall be no Keating Fives in Augusta!).

There is no way of determining just what percentage of “clean election” largess bestowed on legislative job-seekers is devoted to lawn signs, but, since signs are easier than knocking on doors and cheaper than newspapers, these unsightly employment aids must command a lion’s share. In short, due to Augusta’s generosity in awarding funds to practically any legislative candidate who asks, by far the greatest percentage of these monstrosities can be blamed on Augusta.

A popular philosophical premise among Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan economists (the Chicago School) is, “He wins who dies with the most toys.” A variant of this policy must be common among candidates. “He wins who puts out the most lawn signs.” We might establish an award: the pol with the most signs wins a political DSC – Dandiest Scene of Clutter – while the one with the fewest signs wins election (hopefully).

Two Canadian provinces forbid display of cigarettes or cigarette ads on the theory that exposure incites use. Where lawn signs are concerned, that has to be true. But rather than use, lawn signs might incite hostility. While there has been little or no personal injury so far – only occasional destruction of signs by political opponents – those whose names appear should be concerned about their own safety. One more sign, somewhere, may be the straw that breaks the mental back of a long-suffering motorist, and mayhem may result.

In a way, it’s a shame. The public-spirited citizens who serve us in government suffer enough by spending long hours keeping the ship of state afloat. They shouldn’t have to be in fear for their life.

We have laws to protect health, peace, privacy, quality of life, safety, sensibility and delicate constitutions. Why not a law to prevent corruption of visual pleasure? Members of the motoring public cannot idle their engines, smoke, sing, send text messages, phone, pray or talk in tongues while driving. Does it seem a bit much if we protect grass? How about a sliding scale of fines: Ugliest, hardest to read, worst color scheme, sloppiest, plainest, fanciest, biggest pain in the posterior.

As a last resort, the state might require signs to be nourishing and edible, a move that might encourage recently impoverished Wall Street investors and other wildlife to eat them – thus giving real meaning to the term “clean” election.

Rodney Quinn, who lives in Gorham, is a former Maine secretary of state. He can be reached at rquinn@maine.rr.com.