The problem, of course, is that at the heart of the matter, the recent Supreme Court decisions are at least partially correct.
Scary, innit?
The fact of the matter is that while some folks can scream about how "money does not equal speech", restrictions on how people can say what they want to say are as unconstitutional as restrictions on what they want to say.
Direct political contributions tread in a grey area where regulation is arguably possible, but difficult, and that's where the ambiguity starts to poison the debate regarding such contributions as a whole. If I can't give you my money so that you can spend it on advertising, but can instead simply spend that money myself on the exact same advertising (or group together to pool resources towards that end), then a ban on contributions serves no purpose. They still stand, and direct contributions are still restricted, but those restrictions will likely be eroded as time goes on.
While the argument can be made, and justly so, that curtailing campaign contributions is in the public interest, there's no such restriction in the Constitution. Indeed, one could argue that the concept of the SuperPAC is explicitly allowed by the "petition the government" clause in the First Amendment.
Ultimately, what we're looking at right now is a situation that would require a constitutional amendment to remedy. And given that the people in power have little to no vested interest in enacting such an amendment, it seems unlikely to pass anytime soon.
