I was watching a ballgame on TV, when a bunch of people suddenly appeared on the screen saying and doing stupid things, while holding bottles of beer manufactured by a major American brewery. I wondered what was going on, because none of these people suggested I buy their brand of beer. Nobody urged me to join in by saying or doing something stupid. In fact, I wasn’t asked to do anything, except near the end, when an announcer made this polite request:
“Please drink responsibly.”
I pondered that for a moment, and then swallowed the rest of my beer (manufactured by a minor Maine brewery), because to do otherwise would have risked it getting warm and flat. Which would have been irresponsible.
Then, I thought some more about what I’d seen. Had I been subjected to an advertisement attempting to alter my beer-buying habits? Or had some public-spirited corporation spent thousands of dollars to make sure I didn’t behave in ways I might regret?
Fortunately, I didn’t have to think too hard, because I discovered the state Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices (motto: Please Drink Responsibly — At Least During Meetings) had decided the issue for me. On September 22, the commission ruled that political ads that don’t expressly advocate for or against somebody’s election aren’t really ads, but merely expressions of interest in a topic of general concern, such as whether Democratic Governor John Baldacci is less effective than Willie Nelson’s drug counselor or whether Republican challenger Chandler Woodcock thinks women should be banned from appearing in public without burkas and chastity belts.
Since that revelation from the commission, I’ve come to realize that most commercials aren’t really advertising at all. They’re just informative little films, designed to help me consider my options in choosing politicians or personal hygiene products.
The commission’s decision came about because the Republican Governors Association (motto: Please Drink Responsibly, Because That’s Expensive Scotch) bought some tube time to point out what a lousy job Baldacci has done in running the state and what good ideas Woodcock has, such as his plan to “cap wasteful spending.” The GOP guvs didn’t explain why capping waste (attention bureaucrats: this year, no more than half your budget can be squandered) is preferable to eliminating it, but you can only cram so much into 60 seconds.
Meanwhile, the Maine Democratic Party (motto: Please Drink — It’ll Make It Less Painful To Vote For Baldacci) rushed its own spots on the air, warning that Woodcock planned to take the state “backward,” possibly causing it to crush New Hampshire and Vermont. Unless backward turns out to be the other way, in which case we’ll be clipping off a piece of the Maritimes and plunging into the Atlantic.
A normal person — by which I mean a person who swears he or she is not now and never has been a member of the state ethics commission — might conclude these ads are blatant attempts to persuade viewers to vote in a particular way, even though nobody actually comes right out and says that. Just like beer companies don’t always tell you to buy their brands, but rather attempt to influence you by implying their product is hip, while their competitors’ brews contain contaminated spinach residue.
