The solution to the Citizens United case: ban all paid political ads on the airwaves. Britain, France, Norway, Sweden and several other progressive countries already do this. It is perfectly legal under Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C., 395 U.S. 367, 89 S.Ct. 1794 (1969) (Unless, of course, the Supreme Court changes the law again). What good would all that money do for candidates if they had nothing to spend it on? How much could they spend on mailers and internet adds? The Government could fund air time for candidates on an equal basis as a substitute for public financing. Citizens United corporate free speech is not even implicated; they can contribute all the money they want, but perhaps the candidates might not need it so much and would be less likely to grant favors. Moreover, one not telling the broadcasters what to say or not say; your just telling them they can't accept money from anyone--including pacs--for elections. We could at least do this for 60 days prior to the election, though a total ban would be better.
Thirty second ads on TV cannot possibly provide any trustworthy information; they only serve to distort the truth. The networks, despite their unanimous criticism of excessive campaign spending and negative political ads, are the ones who rake in the cash from this clear excess. Banning ads would take the edge way from rich candidates, and perhaps (God forbid) force the voters to read something.