Yes, said the Montana Supreme Court in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana. Eugene Volokh has more commentary here. In short, the Montana Supreme Court identified a number of reasons why corporate expenditures to elect or defeat candidates for state office, or contributions to a candidate or his PAC , are compelling reasons to abridge the speech rights of corporations, but those reasons are ones rejected by the Court in Citizens United. Except, possibly, for one: The Montana Court argued that the state had a compelling reason to ban corporate expenditures/contribution in connection with judicial elections, relying primarily on Caperton, and that the ban was necessary to accomplish that end. Caperton doesn't dispose of the issue because it held only that due process requires recusal of a judge when a litigant that has materially contributed to the judge's election is before the court, not that corporations (or any other class of speakers) can be barred from such support of a judicial candidate. And Republican Party v. White, which struck down Minnesota's "announce clause" as applied to speech of the judicial candidate himself, does not deal with the broader issue of barring certain third party supporters of judicial candidates from expending funds on behalf of the candidate or making contributions to the candidate. But Citizens United made no distinction between judicial elections and any other election, and my reading of White is that the interests asserted on behalf of the state (and found wanting) are no different than the interests identified by Montana in this case.
I think this case is likely to be summarily reversed.