It’s tough to convey much in 30 seconds—that annual exercise in super-short fiction that is the collective Super Bowl ad rollout notwithstanding.

That’s certainly the case with a public service announcement in which Governor Sean Parnell appears, and which has touched off the first real controversy of the 2010 election season.

The TV spot, produced by the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, is the fourth in a series meant to raise awareness and to influence the behavior of men. One ad details the influence men have on their sons’ behavior, while another highlights the traditions of respect in Alaska Native cultures. In a third, Alaska Attorney General Dan Sullivan and Public Safety Commissioner Joe Masters emphasize the criminality of violence against women. Here’s Parnell’s script for the fourth in its entirety:

“My grandfather was an abusive alcoholic. But my father chose to be a different kind of man; he chose to stop the violence and the abuse. He set a strong example for my brother and me. He taught us to respect others—to respect ourselves. Men: choose honor. Choose respect.”

The campaign’s theme—“Real Alaska men choose respect”—closes it out.

That might seem innocuous enough to you. But to Ralph Samuels, a former legislator who’s running for governor against Parnell in the Republican primary, the ad represents a dangerous breach of campaign laws.

On Friday, Samuels campaign manager, Suzanne Armstrong, sent a somber-toned letter to her counterpart at the Parnell campaign, Michelle Toohey, complaining that Parnell’s appearance “ raises serious questions about whether these ads constitute a political use of television airtime.” Other parts of the letter tossed off adjectives like “improper” and “inappropriate.”

The gist of the Samuels camp’s argument is two-fold. First, they believe the ad will benefit Parnell politically, by boosting his name recognition (it won’t: if anything, the ad cements the too-nice-to-govern, “can’t we all get along” stereotype that’s dogged Parnell among some of his detractors since his failed bid to unseat Don Young two years ago).

Second, they think that by providing this allegedly beneficial face time on television, the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault may be running afoul of laws that restrict nonprofits who receive government funds from stumping for candidates.

To make things right, the letter suggests, the Parnell campaign ought to reimburse the nonprofit for the ads that already ran (they’ve since been pulled, a move ANDVSA says was already in the works before Samuels complaint surfaced). Samuels’ campaign even helpfully tallied up the cost: about $600.

It seems possible that Samuels is correct in his interpretation of campaign laws, but that doesn’t mean he’s in the right.

For starters, his complaint undermines the message many others besides Parnell were trying to get out about stemming violence against women (Bill Walker, the third Republican in the gubernatorial primary, blasted Samuels for that).

But more than that, it reveals a troubling hypocrisy in the way some of us think about political speech.

Last month Samuels was in attendance—and among a friendly crowd—at the Alaska Support Industry Alliance’s yearly conference, where commentator Dave Stieren told oil and mining industry contractors that just the day before, “five Supreme Court justices decided you were people too.” Stieren was referring, of course, to the Supreme Court decision that eliminated restrictions on corporate spending in political races.

I’ve been unable to muster the fear or outrage many of my more liberal friends have expressed at that particular decision (perhaps, as a journalist, I’m inclined to be a free speech absolutist, even when I don’t particularly like the speech).

But it strains the imagination to hear such celebration over the impending role of Exxon in our political dialogue yet still take seriously complaints that $600 worth of television airtime devoted to something that ought to be a non-partisan issue is a threat to fair elections.

Samuels—whose campaign stands to benefit from oil money, thanks to that Supreme Court decision coupled with his outspoken stance against ACES—must know the value of speech well enough to understand that disconnect, especially given his years in the legislature, and recent stint as a lobbyist for the cruise industry. Assuming he does, one wonders why he’d choose to fight this particular battle.

And certainly Samuels must recognize that the peculiarities of public discourse never quite square with the economics of the marketplace.

Want to completely commodify information dissemination? Then maybe ANDVSA owes Parnell, for lending his name recognition to them. If athletes can make millions he could make a few grand (a certain ex-governor is rumored to be doing quite well for her appearances, after all). Of course in a world where money can buy any amount of speech, but elected officials have to keep their mouths closed except when they’re explicitly campaigning, doesn’t seem very democratic. It’s a world in which non-profits can’t look to elected leaders for leadership from a bully pulpit on important issues, because those leaders have been slowly neutered, one APOC complaint at a time. But Levi Johnston can make bank by baring himself for Playgirl.

In this case, the better part of discretion would’ve been to let it slide.

krestia.degeorge@anchoragepress.com