Not liking the outcome of the ruling doesn't mean the ruling is wrong, or that the ruling lacks legal merit. For me: I think the convention that corporations are persons is silly - but there's also about a century and a half of legal precedent behind it. I do not think that money restrictions lack a speech infringement; I specifically think they do.
I also don't think the ruling changes the situation significantly. Congress is already owned; this doesn't change that. It may make it somewhat more difficult to change that through the electoral process, but the institutionalised exclusionary system of media and only-two-parties-count already make that an extraordinary difficulty, and since disclosure is still required, massive expenditures from companies could actually be useful to a challenger to the system.