In the aftermath of Citizens United v. FEC, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that swept away longstanding precedent barring corporate money in our elections, states are still scrambling to adjust. But they are choosing very different paths.

America rings in the New Year having seen nine states approve increases to existing campaign contribution limits during 2013. In fact, Michigan fully doubled its limits, and there was a serious effort to do the same in Wisconsin.

So what’s the motivation behind these increases, despite the perennial desire of incumbents to beef up their bank accounts? Perhaps some hope that allowing candidates to raise more money might give candidates the resources to fight back at a time when vast quantities of hard-to-track independent expenditures are creeping into our politics.

This would be a dubious strategy, given the magnitude of independent spending since the Citizens United ruling. Look at North Carolina’s current Senate race, where outside groups already have spent more than $8 million, making it one of the most expensive races in the country even before 2014 and the midterm elections arrived.

The consequences of continuing to push contribution limits upward remain unclear. One result, however, is easy to predict: we should expect the number of small donors participating in elections to diminish. When candidates can seek out larger donations from fewer wealthy interests, there is less need to pursue a grassroots campaign strategy.

This triple hit to democracy — an explosion of independent expenditures, reactionary lifting of campaign contribution limits and the drop in small donor participation — is a testament to the damage Citizens United has done to our political landscape. It also reminds us that the worst of the fallout may lie ahead. Judging by state legislative actions in 2013, we can only guess the ruling will continue to inflict collateral damage at all levels.

Fortunately, not all states have raised limits. Since Citizens United, 16 states have gone on record that our country must move in a more positive direction. Rather than dump more money into the system and make a bad situation worse, these states have enacted legislative resolutions, passed ballot measures and signed official letters calling on Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

States from Montana to Illinois, Vermont to West Virginia have taken firm stands. By some measures, this effort is one-third of the way there. The necessary support to ratify an amendment, three-fourths of the states, is on its way to being realized. The country is increasingly ready for Congress to send it such an amendment.

Some states, such as Maryland and Connecticut, have taken both paths at the same time. Legislators in these two states have raised their contribution limits while also signing letters calling for a Constitutional amendment. These cases show the distorting effects of unlimited spending on public policy, and the ongoing debate about how to respond.

Yet the choice is quite clear. Long term, the only sure solution to the problem of big money domination of our elections is to reform our political system.

In our history, we have seen time and again that the way to overcome a difficult political problem is by confronting it head-on. We must restore our power to regulate election spending, not chip away at it. We must overturn Citizens United.

Which approach wins out will depend on the American people acting to reclaim our democracy and taking affirmative steps to challenge the extraordinary and growing power of private money in public life.

John Bonifaz is the executive director at Free Speech For People (ww.FreeSpeechForPeople.org) and Ryan O’Donnell is the communications coordinator. They wrote this for this newspaper.