Lol at people that don't think money in politics is a problem.
It's more complicated than that, though. It's clear in some cases, like the Feingold-Johnson Senate election in 2010, that money can have an influence on elections. However, this has been the case even before Citizens United, and appointing a Supreme Court nominee who opposes it does not equal actually solving the problem. If you really truly want to get money out of politics, you have to 1) get elected, 2) amend the Constitution. To Bernie's credit, he has tried step 2 already, although it was even less successful than his ongoing attempt to complete step 1.
The sad reality is that bad campaign finance laws, with or without Citizens United, are the inevitable reality for at leas the next few years if not the next few decades. If having a "movement" could change something as big as Citizens United, Roe v. Wade would have gone away long ago. And seeing as that's not the case, the best options are either to push for a national constitutional convention and risk also getting flag burning amendments, overturning Roe v. Wade, etc. Or to simply play the game on your side as well, lobby the many liberal millionaires and billionaires to help finance your campaigns, and fight fire with fire. It's obviously not ideal, but it's the best we've got under the circumstances. Trying to be Sanders-pure as a party will get us a lot more 2010s and 2014s than it will 2006s and 2008s.
Although on the bright side, I think the vast majority of elections we hold are not determined by the amount spent, mostly because of how many elections on the local level aren't contested in the first place.
