http://graphics8.nyt...mits/original.pdf (183 page .pdf).

Stevens's dissent begins on p.88 of the PDF.

It's a bad thing, but it's hard to see how it's going to play out (other than making the broadcasters very, very happy). As some have said, how is it really going to bend the curve compared to what we've had the last few cycles (527s and the like). I dunno.

[edit:] Excerpts:

p.107-108:

By removing one of its central components, today’sruling makes a hash out of BCRA’s “delicate and interconnected regulatory scheme.” McConnell, 540 U. S., at 172. Consider just one example of the distortions that will follow: Political parties are barred under BCRA from soliciting or spending “soft money,” funds that are not subject to the statute’s disclosure requirements or its source and amount limitations. 2 U. S. C. §441i; McConnell, 540 U. S., at 122–126. Going forward, corporations and unions will be free to spend as much general treasury money as they wish on ads that support or attack specific candidates, whereas national parties will not be able to spend a dime of soft money on ads of any kind. The Court’s ruling thus dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions—and the narrow interests they represent—vis-à-vis the role of political parties—and the broad coalitions they represent—in determining who will hold public office.22

No doubt the lobbyists are pouring over this to see what supertankers they can drive through now...

Cheers,
Scott.