TO THE EDITOR:
I’m somewhat unhappy at the fact that The Daily Tar Heel’s editorial board gave a thumbs down to the Supreme Court’s decision to change campaign finance law (“Quick Hits,” Jan. 26). While I don’t know what reasons created the DTH’s opinion, I can only speculate that it is founded in some belief that money influences a person’s political decisions.
Now, this concept I consider to be very intriguing. I always thought that a person’s political persuasion was forever founded in their core beliefs and values. How likely are those values to change due to advertising (which I assume is the only political weapon that additional funding will increase)?
Am I more likely to change my views simply because an ad on TV tells me to vote no or yes? How persuasive are these ads in fundamentally challenging people’s core beliefs?
Even if I were to assume that political advertising influenced a person’s political decisions, what about a company’s right to express its own political preferences? Are we to sacrifice Wal-Mart’s right to express its own political ideals so that my fragile mind is not flooded with their rhetoric on who to vote for?
Instead of assuming that people can be brainwashed and that corporations have an evil plot to accomplish this, I would rather allow companies to express their own political preference so that I can take notice of which company has my values and which does not. The real question is whether I will vote for Barack Obama over Coca-Cola.
Brandon Blalock
Junior
Philosophy
