You set up live feeds, and you put the media recordings up on a server. The public and the press can do the rest.

I'll say again - there is no Bureau of Transgression in this idea. It's purely to put policy debate on the record.

As for backroom deals - a meeting that rubber stamps a decision without debating it is just as suspicious as a meeting which doesn't lead to consistent policy.

Financial records provide a literal paper trail for anyone who wants to check who benefits from decisions.

I don't understand why there's a problem with any of this. Parliamentary debates are already televised in the UK, Hansard keeps a record of all parliamentary statements in paper form, and MPs are supposed to make their expense claims and business connections public.

This is just extending the same established principle to other government contexts.

What I am saying is this would require a STASI-like organisation. And who would monitor this organisation?

Make it the law that acceptance of governmental employment constitutes permission to have your activities recorded by sound and video, and, except as specifically excluded, it is legal to make any of these recordings public. Make the legal presumption in favor of release of recordings and make claims to the contrary continuously subject to judicial review, with both the party that made the recording and the party that was recorded entitled to bring claims to a judge of their choice.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."