Here are a couple of ordinary reports on the meaning and/or consequences of the Court’s decision to uphold the campaign finance laws. This is merely a start. Tom Edsall of the WaPo, explaining who the winners and losers are. Sensible, as far as it goes, as long as it is understood that in the long run it is the two party system that is the loser. Glenn Justice of the NY Times takes on the issue in much the same way as Edsall does. McConnell’s right: "Soft money is not gone, it has just changed its address." New organizations, special interests, fund-raisers, rich guys who want more direct influence, third parties, will all benefit. People like George Soros will end benefitting most. It is certain that at least the Democratic Party (and eventually perhaps even the GOP) will be greatly disadvantaged; it will turn into a small mom-and pop operation, with Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s small annual contributions not being able to compete with the likes of Soros who will give to other newly created organizations that will prove to be more ideological and narrow, and, unfortunately, will have a tremendous effect on the tone and quality of public deliberations. None of this will be to the benfit of the country in the long run. It’s a shame. By the way, there is an argument brewing on whether or not this decision is the longest Court decision ever--that may be reserved to Dred Scott--but it is probable that it’s consequences will be on par with that other infamous case, regardless of length.