Of course they are going to reverse it. The significance of the Montana decision is how it illustrates a growing division of principles in this country - beyond mere politics. It is far too soon to persuade cynics, but this is a nation well on its way to be being divided against itself. Citizens United serves the political establishment that rewards the wealthiest members of both the public (Congress) and private (their corporate owners) sectors. Average citizens are still too distracted or indifferent to realize that things like caucuses and primaries have nothing to do with their interests, but participating still makes them feel involved and part of the conversation. What the Montana decision means for people like me is the hope that there are public officials out there, in real positions of leadership, who see what's going on and are ready to take a stand. That's the direction more leaders need to go in, in all branches of government, not just the judiciary.

But heaping scorn on the people who are trying to do the right thing won't stop the Man from recognizing you are still one of us and bending you over until you call him Sir.

In CU, The Supreme Court said that corporate funding of political broadcasts cannot be limited under the First Amendment. In order to protect a corporation's right to spend as much money as it wants on, say, political attack ads of any kind, it had to find that the corporation is a person with First Amendment rights. A lot of people believe this radical new definition of "personhood" goes too far in expanding the original basis for treating corporations as persons (i.e., to ease the complexity of litigating contract disputes and civil claims) and that the Court's reasoning was disingenuous. Anyway, you should probably read the opinion before you start getting all clever and stuff.

Here is another link that expands on the point I tried to make above. And a more popular source here.