So I just learned that this is the first political poster released under a Creative Commons license. Good poster too. Gets CC licensing in front of more folks, especially politicos.
The poster and the idea are good. I'm definitely in favour of banning political campaign contributions and financing such things via the state. It won't waste as much money as people think, because we don't have to give them much. This will force politicians off the TV, where advertising is expensive, and onto the road where they might actually be forced to meet the people they are claiming to represent. In particular, if a man is to be president of the United States, then let him walk (or drive) some good proportion of it on his way there.
Now I don't believe that just banning contributions will stop the corruption, it's too well entrenched, but it will redress the balance somewhat and that's still a good thing.
Another way forward is to do something about the revolving door between business and government. The UK government is littered with hapless execs who have taken a couple of years out from their boardroom careers to milk some opportunities out of government for them & their business chums. Is it any different in America?
I agree that government, if it is to be efficient, needs a knowledge of business methods and good practice. You'll get no argument from me there. But public service should be about "serving the public" and not "helping one's self," and "lining the pockets of one's friends."
Here is my proposal, make of it what you will:
I would like to see the formation of a full-time corruption monitoring agency. It should be state funded with oversight by the Public Accounts Committee. The agency should be headed by a senior judge who serves a 3 year term and should be elected by the public (from a free list) and not appointed by politicians.
Other full-time members of the agency should be drawn from all walks of life including pensioners, business, the press, the judiciary, the police, and members of parliament. There should be strict controls in place to limit the power of interest, i.e. members of one industry shielding their friends. Important investigations should have oversight by a jury, drawn at random from the public.
The agency should have oversight over all aspects of government business and that includes the prime ministers office, the department of defence and the foreign office. It should have the power to call anyone to answer, from me right up to the Prime Minister, with refusal carrying the same weight as refusing to appear at the house of commons.
Decisions about whether a report is made public or not should be made by the full investigating committee (including the jury if there is one) with the default being that publishing is in the public interest. The agency should provide access via the web to all materials that are not held to be secret and the head of the agency should publish an annual report.
As a final protection this agency should not be directly controlled by parliament. In particular, changes to it's constitution and it's funding should be ratified by public referendum.
All this will cost many millions of pounds to set-up properly but, in the long term, I think it will be worth it.
The price of freedom is never free.