Most people don't know the background of the Citizens United case. Since you do, then I'd wager that you also know the effects that it's had on campaign finance laws. The ruling overturned existing laws that limited campaign contributions from corporations while also overruling other cases that had previously limited free speech rights.

> It means that citizens don't lose their free speech rights when they form groups.

That's basically what the court's majority opinion stated. But the dissenting opinion also stated that the ruling provides more opportunities for corruption and for laws to be "bought and sold". So to say that GP's comments are "Not evenly remotely true" is disingenuous.

But the impact of the Citizens United decision has allowed dark money to flood into U.S. political system in the form of anonymous spending from "independent" political action groups.

Dark money can be used for purposes akin to bribery since the speech of the group has been interpreted as political influence. While the money doesn't go directly to the candidate, it is used for their benefit or detriment during elections.

It just so happens that outside political spending has risen dramatically since the SCOTUS Citizens United decision in 2009.[0]

[0] https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/index.php

> citizens don't lose their free speech rights when they form groups.

... even when those groups are legally obligated to act in service of a profit-driven corporate agenda. It's not really 'free' speech when you take the labor of your employees and use it to promote policy that directly conflicts with their interests.