As discussed last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case considering Indiana's restrictive voter ID law, which if upheld could disenfranchise countless voters. An editorial in the New York Times suspects this might occur considering the conservative nature of the Court, which has also become "increasingly hostile to voters." And to defend this statement, the Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) case is partly given as an example of such hostility. Though we can agree on the danger of upholding the voter ID law, the Court's decision on pre-election advertising restrictions is much different and to compare them in considering the Court's conservative direction misunderstands WRTL. "Recently, however, the court struck down parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that limited 'Swift boat' style attack ads on the eve of elections. It was perfectly willing to reverse a federal law when the political power of corporations and wealthy individuals was at stake." Not so; in fact, in the WRTL case the Court was willing to protect the first amendment and ruled that the federal electioneering communications ban is unconstitutional when applied to genuine issue ads, regardless if the ads are produced by nonprofits or corporations. Nonprofits worked hard to protect the law from grassroots lobbying. The Times editorial accurately warns of the outcome of the Court's voter ID decision, but in providing support of the Court's conservative drift, is mistaken in pointing to WRTL which was a free speech success for nonprofits.