Today during my regular spot on the Nicole Sandler radio show, Nicole and I were expressing our amazement that the news media, such as they are, covered the Supreme Court decision on the Arizona Papers Please Law, but barely touched on the Montana ruling that overturned a 100-year-old campaign finance law:

Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed its 2-year-old decision allowing corporations to spend freely to influence elections. The justices struck down a Montana law limiting corporate campaign spending.

By a 5-4 vote, the court’s conservative justices said the decision in the Citizens United case in 2010 applies to state campaign finance laws and guarantees corporate and labor union interests the right to spend freely to advocate for or against candidates for state and local offices.

The majority turned away pleas from the court’s liberal justices to give a full hearing to the case because massive campaign spending since the January 2010 ruling has called into question some of its underpinnings.

Just what we need, more deregulation. Corporations Gone Wild! Super PAC Nation! Billionaire sugar daddies! Because of the horrendous Montana decision, those who have supported a movement to amend the U.S. Constitution will be going into overdrive, and let’s hope they don’t stop until Citizens United is overturned. However, amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in Congress and ratification by at least 38 states.

This will not be easy, but it is the single most worthy effort I can think of, and one about which we must be relentless if we want to avoid an America of the Super Corporate and the Corporate Lite parties (even worse than we have now) that thrive on unrestricted campaign spending.

Roll Call:

Monday’s ruling “underscores the need for a constitutional amendment since there’s no prospect of this court undoing the damage it’s done,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, which is helping lead a state and local campaign to pressure Congress to amend the Constitution. “And if we take seriously how consequential is that damage, then we need an amendment to remedy it.”

Hawaii, New Mexico, Vermont and Rhode Island have already approved resolutions supporting constitutional amendments aimed at reversing Citizens United. Massachusetts and California are scheduled to vote on similar resolutions as early as Thursday.

More than 200 such measures have been enacted at the local level. A coalition of more than 60 progressive, labor and environmental groups has also mounted local protests and state ballot initiatives around calls for an amendment.

Republicans are also trying to make revealing who is behind all that money even more secret. Foreign donors and a handful of billionaires can influence our elections, but that’s okay with them, because if anyone were to find out who is donating all those millions, they might get teased! Or protested! And that’s no fair! Waah!

How do you balance free speech (money) with more free speech (more money) if you don’t have the more-money? “Who has more money than the corporations and the super rich?” Rachel Maddow asks in the video below. Certainly not the 99%.

Please pay special attention to about 8:00 to about 12:00 regarding corporate money vs. union money:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy