Call the Satanists or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They may want their own license plate too. Maybe NORML would like a license plate with a marijuana leaf. I don’t even like to think of what NAMBLA might want. But fair’s fair, if all it takes is
a registered charitable organization can submit a design to the Registry of Motor Vehicles, post a $100,000 bond to protect the state from financial loss, and obtain applications and fees from at least 1,500 drivers who want the new plates. The state returns the bond if more than 3,000 of the specialty plates sell within two years.
The anti-abortion license plates are a national project. In Massachusetts, the cost a plate holders is $60. Twelve dollars goes for the costs to manufacture the plate. Twenty-eight dollars goes to the charitable organization.
Across the country, motorists can purchase specialty license plates to show their support for state-approved groups or institutions, such as public universities, firefighters, veterans, and … anti-abortion activists? Twenty-nine states offer anti-abortion “Choose Life” license plates.
Among them, 15 states explicitly route the proceeds to anti-abortion organizations or crisis pregnancy centers, nonprofits that advise pregnant women against abortion. CPCs have been caught lying about the physical and mental health risks of abortions, and many of them are affiliated with religious organizations.
Massachusetts seems to be one of those 15 states. Legally, I don’t see a way to exclude politically objectionable charities, and frankly, I don’t have a problem with any charity participating in the license plate program. I suspect that the ability to bond for $100,000 prevents pro-choice organizations from bothering the license plates.
Tolerance and diversity extends right and left.
The symbolism may loom large, but the benefits to the state and charities included are rather minimal.
I remember the hubbalo about the Tebow ad a few years ago, but there was an astute pro-choice female sportswriter who mentioned that Tim and his mom are talking about choice. They are saying they made the right decision for them, and by doing so, are directly implying there is a choice and the choice is best made by the pregnant woman and not by the state. Choose life is ironically a pro-choice message, since it is asking women to choose to bring the child to term and implying the choice is theirs. I doubt that is the interpretation advocates from the organization intend, but it’s a fair one for the public to make.
I have no issue funding crisis pregnancy centers or adoption agencies with the personal funds of the supporters of those groups, but it is certainly awkward at best to have the government be the middle man in this case. It also seems difficult to reconcile these plates with the ruling the Supreme Court made recently regarding Confederate Veterans plates in Texas, where the majority, including Clarence Thomas, specifically concluded it is a form of government speech.
The court has yet to rule on choose life, but it would seem that consistency would deem any partisan message as unconstitutional for a license plate. I guess there is nothing stopping planned parenthood advocates from getting their own plate in MA, as they have in several other states, and having that money go to that organization. The entry barrier is so low, it’s a wonder Baystate based Yankees fans haven’t already succeeded in putting their offensive logo on our plates.
The implication of that Texas case– a poor decision on 1st Amendment grounds, says I– is that the government can freely pick and choose which of these plates to allow, which means it can have a “pro-choice” plate, while not allowing a “choose life” plate.
My take on the case was that the majority determined it was political speech, and thus banned, not that the state could privilege which political causes to elevate. Unless, by ruling the way they did, it was a de jure defense of Texas being able to pick say ‘choose life’ and refuse ‘offensive’ sayings like the Sons of the Confederate Veterans.
I am for either allowing any message or disallowing all messages. But if we have already gone down the road where we can customize license plates to generate money for some charities, it doesn’t make sense for the state to favor some over the other, and since the taxpayers aren’t paying for the message, than the question of government agency seems moot.
Under the Massachusetts policy, I don’t see how PP couldn’t do the same thing, or the ACLU, or NACCP, or the Patrolman’s Union, or a plethora of outside groups. I guess so long as their money ends up going to a designated charity, then its ok. Yankee fans can get their plates too, even in Red Sox Nation, if they can follow the RMV guidelines.
My reading of the Texas decision made it seem like a more blanket policy of excluding political speech from license plates on the grounds the state is endorsing a side. But perhaps I was wrong.
the money, you can have the plate. It’s a lot of money, however.
I guess Citizen’s United would cover that?
My read was that the holding was that the plate is government speech, and thus not subject to anyone’s first amendment rights.
The Texas group wanted a plate with a Confederate flag, which was rejected. The group claimed that this infringed their first amendment rights. Nope, said the court, because the plate isn’t private speech, but government speech, which makes the 1st Amendment completely irrelevant.
End result: the government may pick and choose, at will, the kind of plates it will approve. It can approve a “choose life” plate, and reject a pro-choice plate, or it can do the opposite, or it can accept both, or decline both.
I didn’t say it was a good decision. And our own SJC might disagree.
The plate was government speech which left it up to the government to pick and choose, then I dislike that outcome, though I think one could reasonably argue that a license plate is government speech and an official document. After all, we don’t customize our actual licenses with messages of allegiance to a sport team, or political or charitable cause. I think a consistent policy that treated it as government speech would be for governments to standardize and keep all messages off-but they lost a good revenue stream so it’s easier to just pick on the really unpopular ones.
may be state speech. From Wikipedia:
I don’t know about Texas or Citizen’s United. I was just joking around.
I’ve never been completely comfortable with issue advocacy on them, especially messages that might be controversial. That’s what bumper stickers are for. I am OK with more unifying messages that seem to be identified with the state such as Maryland’s “Save the Chesapeake” plates.
The legislature passed plate reform in the early 2000’s. Now, it isn’t a matter of legislation if you get a plate – you have to pre-sell (I think) 1,000 plates with cash deposits given for the plate to be produced. There are a LOT of groups – progressive and conservative – who have tried but who cannot meet that bar, which is overall a good thing. For the RMV to give you a plate, you have to put your money where your mouth is upfront. Before, plates were produced but had no takers.
They are also supposed to discontinue plates that do not meet a renewal standard, and I THINK that may have happened to the Olympic plates.