Downvoted by people who believe the amount of speech you can have is proportional to your bank account balance.

if you read Citizens United carefully, you'll see the point of the decision is actually the opposite. The wealthy can afford whole media companies, and otherwise have a great deal of ability to put information out into the general public, without ever stepping afoul of election laws. But, as has been in precedent in US law since at least the 1790s [0], groups of people also have the right to be "united for a special purpose" [1]. "[T]he individual person’s right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons" [2]. This applies to "[unions], associations of manufacturers, retail and wholesale trade groups, consumers' leagues, farmers' unions, religious groups, and every other association representing a segment of American life" and "It is therefore important -- vitally important -- that all channels of communication be open to [those groups] during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community" [3]. That's what Citizens United established. Here's a key snippet from Kennedy's majority opinion:

"wealthy individuals and unincorporated associations can spend unlimited amounts .... Yet [under the Austin decision] certain disfavored associations of citizens — those that have taken on the corporate form — are penalized for engaging in the same political speech .... When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful."

[0] The Rev John Bracken v. The Visitors of Wm & Mary College, 7 Va. 573; 1790

[1] Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 1886

[2] Scalia's concurrence, Citizens United v. FEC, 2010

[3] United States v. United Auto Workers, 1957