Opposing the Court

As I’m reading the editorial section of the Los Angeles Times, I noticed an article, ‘Countering the court’, in regards to the Congress’s attempt to counter a decision that was made by the Supreme Court last month. The Supreme Court ruled “that corporations have a 1st Amendment right to advertise on behalf of political candidates.” Sen. Charles E. Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen have announced to legislation a counter for this by proposing a bill that would “require corporations to disclose their political expenditures to shareholders.”They also proposed another bill that would “require fuller disclosure to both the Federal Election Commission and to voters of the role played by corporate money in campaign advertising.” The author wrote this for the concerns of the voters. He believes that having corporations advertising for candidates will place “burdens on the voters to discern the motives of those speakers.” The editor argues that although the attempt to counter the Supreme Court’s ruling was a decent start, it still did not keep corporations from advertising for political candidates. In other words, they are still allowed to advertise for the candidates. Based on the sources from the speakers, the editor did make a reasonable argument. As I read through the rest of the article, the author did not explain at all why it is bad for corporations to advertise for political candidates. He only stated that they shouldn’t do it and how it will confuse the voters. For the majority of his article he explains his suggestions on how to improve the speaker’s proposal. As far as what I’ve read from his article, I’m not convinced as why Congress should place the higher restrictions.