Not everyone agrees Citizen's United is an insult to democracy. Do you even know what actual case was about? The government was trying to stop an anti-Hillary movie from being publicized because they claimed it was illegal campaign spending. The Supreme Court did right by rejecting an absurd attempt to regulate political speech.
What's the difference between money spent by the candidate and money spent by a super pac? If both pools are being managed by campaigning experts, there's not a single difference. Citizen's united established that there is absolutely no limit to the amount of money that a candidate can use to win an election, as long as there's a separate campaign manager for the PAC and they don't collude.
No, the hatred of CU is not absolutely unanimous. But it's pretty widespread, and no amount of word juggling will change the fact that it effectively allows unlimited amounts of anonymous untraceable money to influence elections.
I think allowing monetary restrictions on campaign-finance (with the exception of prohibiting anonymous donations directly to politicians) is the court's campaign-finance original sin.
When multiple people share an opinion and want to advocate for it, they have to spend money to get heard. Printing pamphlets, making videos, paying people to stand on the corner. You can't have freedom of speech without the corresponding freedom of advocacy.
