I think blame on Citizen's United is misplaced. Even without it, rich interests can (and do) simply buy media companies and promote politicians without any regulation at all.

In theory at least, the pooling of money into PACs allows ordinary people with small donations to make a dofference.

Maybe we should encourage ordinary citizens to put some money into PACs, which will have a greater impact than trying to prevent rich people from having influence (which doesn't usually work).

From your perspective, what were the legal issues of the case that make you disagree with it?