First the Supreme Court struck down the Montana law barring corporate contributions, and now this all comes to the end (image via theexaminer.com). 

So, maybe you heard that the Supreme Court issued a few rulings on one or two cases last week?

(I know, I know - that whole TomKat thing blindsided me too. I haven't been able to think about anything else either)

One of the decisions the Supremes made in the last few days that may not have taken root in our public mind as quickly as others was their 5-4 reversal of the Montana Supreme Court decision on American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, referred to by some as "Citizens United II."

In late 2011, the Montana Supreme Court made a direct challenge to Citizens United when it upheld a 100-year-old ban on corporate campaign contributions. But the U.S. Supreme Court did not hear arguments on the case, as many Montana partisans had wanted. Rather, the Court struck down the Montana law outright.

So what does all of this mean for campaign finance reform activists like you and me? Well, I'll tell you. Actually, you know what? I'll let the internet do it for me: what follows is some analysis and opinion from around the web about ATP v Bullock - the facts of the decision, the short run and the long, the immediate impacts on our elections, and what, if any, silver lining there is to find.

•  All hail SCOTUS blog! It has all the relevant documents on the Supremes' decision, as well as a "plain English" breakdown.
• Washington D.C.'s insidery Hill newspaper has a fine long piece on ATP v Bullock, and the National Law Journal (free registration required) has a long article as well.
• The New York Times wrote an editorial strongly condemning the Court's summary rejection of the Montana law. McClatchy newspapers collects two editorials, one in favor, the other against. 
•  Rich Pildes and Rick Hasen at the Election Law Blog provide two takes on the ATP v Bullock decision.
• Meanwhile, Montanans aren't quitting the fight (and neither should you).