I see your point regarding "movies" with political agendas. I don't support the idea regardless of who makes them, someone will interpret them as propaganda. However, it occurs to me that tackling this problem at the end is like trying to put the smoke back into the fire.
It occurs to me that there are groups on both ends of the political spectrum that spend more time trying to convince the populace who to blame for their problems, then actually working to solve them. The problem in my mind revolves around the fact that the problem is a system almost as complex as the weather. Most people don't take the try to understand the problem, especially when their or corporate and private interests with vast resources who are eager to tell you who's at fault.
This problem has solutions, but they require a level of understand that most people don't possess or are willing to commit to learn.
The solution in my mind involves education, cultural change, moral change and the willingness of the average person to commit themselves to activism rather then just watching the "news" so they know who to complain about tomorrow at work during coffee breaks.
I suppose that depends on what, exactly, you believe the problem to be. Some believe the problem is that there's too much influence of money in politics. I believe there's too much influence of politics in nearly everything. If you want to get into a pissing match about who can say what, when, and how, there is no good end that can possibly come of it. Whoever is in power will use that power to their advantage (See the FEC ruling on Michael Moore's movie vs. Citizens United's movie, for example). McCain/Feingold was called "The Incumbent Protection Act" by critics for good reason.
Let's assume that corporate/union donations to campaigns are the problem and that we've completely outlawed them. What's to stop someone from putting together a "news organization" and filling their publications with only news articles that make one candidate look bad, excluding anything that might harm their preferred candidate. How would you intend to police that? If you can't/won't police that, what makes you think it would be more fair to deny any other group's right to speak?
I don't assume that if the system were more transparent and our education system were vastly improved and our cultural and moral values were focused on things like fairness, equality and the idea that a hard days work should entitle you to a reasonable standard of living that politicians could not be trusted to implement rules that are in line with their constituents that elected them.
I realize that we are a long way from that, so the question is, how do we get their? I refuse to assume that this ideal is impossible.
If all of those things you mentioned in the first part of the above statement were in place, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Who would you say is a stereotypical politician? Bill Clinton, Rick Perry, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama, etc. Would you personally trust any one of them with anything of any importance to you? If so, I have some property I'd like to sell you...if not, why would you trust any of them to limit someone else's political speech in a way that has any semblance of fairness? They can walk out to a microphone and be on TV pretty much any time they choose...
I see your point, this goes back to the point I made earlier, but at some point, a point I think we're approaching, information is monopolized by those with access and the resources to exploit media. The 1% have motive, opportunity and are much easier to organize around a common theme, then the the bottom, who spend 1/2 of their waking hours trying to makes ends meet. The other 1/2 is spent taking care of kids, running errands, maintaining their home. It's extremely hard for the average person to compete.
Exploitation of the media has been happening as long as media have existed. What rules can we propose to prevent it that will not invest an enormous advantage in incumbent politicians? I'm all ears.
Citizens united is simply a vehicle for those with money to promote ideas that benefit them often at the expense of those at the bottom. Even if what you said is 100% true, the system is unsustainable and needs to be reformed.
McCain/Feingold was a vehicle for those in power to hold advantage over their challengers at the expense of, well everyone who isn't in power. Citizens United came as a challenge to that power. How, exactly, is that a bad thing?