A poster reading “PiS = expensive” was displayed on a municipal notice board in a town near Warsaw, promoted by the Civic Platform. An aide to Beata Szydło, the former prime minister, asked whether this kind of political agitation is lawful.
Anti-PiS poster about “expensive”
For some time, the Civic Platform has circulated red-yellow posters bearing the slogan “PiS = expensive.” Critics say this campaign frames the inflation issue through a political lens, sometimes labeling the rising costs as a consequence of government policy, while other external factors continue to drive prices in Poland. Supporters describe the posters as a straightforward call to scrutinize policy decisions. The campaign has appeared in multiple locales, including public display areas managed by local governments. Paweł Rybicki, a former prime minister aide and a political blogger, confirmed on social media that the posters were placed on the bulletin boards of a municipality near Warsaw, highlighting the reach of the message. (Source: wPolityce)
In Michałowice, located close to Warsaw, anti-government posters were noted on official municipal notice boards. Questions were raised about the legality of such postings in public spaces. Local observers and residents considered whether the materials complied with municipal rules governing public messaging and the use of government property for political purposes. (Source: wPolityce)
– The issue prompted a public question about compliance with local statutes and procurement rules, and whether crossing the line from information to agitation affects the legitimacy of government-endorsed spaces.
Public funds and local programs have also become points of contention. It was reported that PLN 3 million allocated through a government program was reallocated or utilized by the Michałowice Municipality, triggering debates about how such funds are used to influence public discourse. (Source: wPolityce)
Even on buses in Warsaw
Earlier, posters with the slogan were seen on Warsaw’s buses. The issue raised questions about funding and governance, since public transport is financed by residents across the capital. The debate touched on whether transport networks should serve as platforms for political messages, and who ultimately bears the cost when such messaging affects daily commutes. (Source: wPolityce)
Related discussions have circulated in regional media and on social networks, underscoring the ongoing tension between political messaging and the role of municipal and city-owned services in public communication. (Source: wPolityce)
Overall, the phenomenon reflects broader questions about the boundaries of political expression in public spaces, the use of government resources for campaign purposes, and how local administrations manage material that intersects with public policy debates. (Source: wPolityce)