NO NO NO!  The <i>Citizens United</i> case has had absolutely no change to "campaign finance", and the law and case law about campaign finance "reform" has always recognized its status as political speech.<p>What <i>Citizens United</i> has done is to return to "corporations" (including the non-profit Citizens United that successfully sued the FEC) the rights to free speech and freedom of association they enjoyed prior to <i>Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce</i> and McCain-Feingold.  No longer can governments censor (in the real meaning of the world) their speech in elections.<p>In both these examples, campaign finance and election period speech, there are still "reasonable" regulations, like various sorts of disclosure (although Thomas disagreed, based on the nasty retaliation that's been seen lately against people making small contributions to causes that many don't like; I expect this will be revisited after the first murder that comes from this disturbing trend).<p>For those who think this is a <i>bad thing</i>, I say that the answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not government censorship of the speech you don't like.  (Need I mention the slippery slope the latter presents?)