An incredibly good, and perhaps very time-consuming, piece of work that produces exactly what is needed.
A broad and growing consensus contends that money and its influence pose an existential threat to the democratic process, and this consensus has only strengthened in the midst of a historically rancorous presidential race.
President Obama openly criticized the ruling during his 2010 State of the Union Address, just days after it was published.
Completely absent from the campaign rhetoric is any real effort to describe a viable strategy for either (1) getting the Supreme Court to overturn the case; or (2) amending the Constitution — that is, the two possible paths available in the American political system for overriding a constitutional law ruling from the Supreme Court, such as Citizens United.
Amending the Constitution requires a two-tiered process where 3/4 of the states must ratify a proposal adopted by either (1) a 2/3 supermajority of both houses of Congress; or (2) a national convention called by 2/3 of the states.
As for a Supreme Court reversal, the prospects appear inherently rosier; as opposed to a constitutional amendment, it requires only a majority of Supreme Court Justices to agree to overrule Citizens United in an appropriate case.
Indeed, any consideration of this possibility must start from acknowledging that a strong resistance to overruling precedent is pressed into the DNA of the American legal system via the doctrine of stare decisis.