I don't know whether the Citizen's United case went the right way or not, but I do think it is unfortunate either way. I just don't see the ability for those with massive financial resources to inundate the media with "partisan stuff" as a net positive in any way, shape, or form. The decision has made things worse than ever, in my opinion, and that's a bi-partisan position (thus the McCain-Feingold Reform Act).
[By the way, this is why (as I've said before) the old, "vote for a Republican so that we can have anti-abortion judges" is a bait and switch, not nearly as slam-dunk as we often pretend. There are far more consequences for the Clarence Thomas type judge than the reversal of Roe vs. Wade that has never come. Agree or disagree with the type of decisions this kind of judge makes, but don't pretend it's about abortion. So far it's not been about abortion at all but entirely about things like this Citizen's United decision.]
That is all preface and aside. My point is that there is a lot of smoke and mirrors in the superpack commercials. It should not be trusted on either side. If we want to know what the candidates stand for, we should listen to what they themselves are saying and the advertisements that they themselves approve.
Are they themselves saying false things? Almost certainly. But it seems to deteriorate even more the further you get from the individual candidate. I'm resolved not to hold Romney or Obama accountable for anything in the ads of their superpacks, only for what they themselves say in the ads they themselves endorse because, frankly, their own superpacks turn me off to them.
Did Citizens United go the right way? I don't know. But I refuse to be the dupe of these superpacks. I'll enact campaign finance reform on my own--and intelligence--by ignoring them.