To enact section 9.031 of the Revised Code to enact the No Free Advertising for Politicians Act to prohibit certain government signs from including a public official's personal name or likeness.
HB 938 would create a new section of the Ohio Revised Code, section 9.031, under the title the “No Free Advertising for Politicians Act.” The bill prohibits the use of public funds in certain government signs and markings that display the personal name or likeness of a current public official. The restriction would apply to road signs, billboards, outdoor markers, and signs, stickers, or decals on the exterior of buildings, outdoor fixtures, or vehicles.
The bill contains exceptions for items that show only an official’s title or position, rather than a personal name or likeness, and for items specifically authorized by law to include that information. It also directs public offices or agencies to remove or modify existing noncompliant items as soon as practicable after the effective date, with a limited exception for legally required approval or security seals already in place before the law takes effect. Violations would be punished under the existing penalty provision in section 3599.40 of the Revised Code.
HB 938 would add a new restriction on the use of public funds for government signage and exterior markings that feature the personal name or likeness of current public officials. In practice, state and local agencies would need to review existing signs, decals, vehicle markings, and similar items for compliance and replace or modify those that do not meet the new standard. The bill would affect public offices, political subdivisions, and vendors producing such materials, while leaving intact signs that use only titles or are otherwise authorized by law.
The bill appears to be framed as a good-government or anti-self-promotion measure, suggesting support for limiting taxpayer-funded promotion of individual politicians. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes available, there is no documented debate or formal vote history to indicate broader legislative support or opposition. Based on the bill’s language and title, the overall sentiment is likely aimed at curbing perceived political branding rather than changing core government operations.
The main potential point of contention is whether the bill would be seen as a reasonable restriction on public spending or as an unnecessary limitation on customary government signage and identification practices. Questions could arise about what counts as a “likeness,” which items are “specifically authorized by law,” and how broadly the prohibition would apply to existing signs, vehicle markings, and security or approval seals. Another possible issue is enforcement, since violations would be tied to an existing criminal penalty provision, which could raise concerns about compliance burdens for agencies and contractors.