評論
打印
Money in politics
政界金權
Sky's the limit
任君捐
The justices open the door to more campaign contributions
法院為競選贊助敞開大門
SHAUN McCUTCHEON, a businessman from Alabama, wanted to give a symbolic $1,776 to 28 Republican candidates for Congress in 2012. Because of federal limits imposed after the Watergate scandal, Mr McCutcheon was allowed to donate this sum only to 16 campaigns. On April 2nd, however, the Supreme Court ruled that he can get his chequebook out again. In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the justices voted 5-4 to strike down two “aggregate caps” on campaign contributions, leaving “base limits” of $2,600 per candidate, per election intact. Where individuals had been limited to total contributions of $48,600 to candidates for federal office and $74,600 to political parties and political-action committees, they can now give as much as they like.
2012年，亞拉巴馬州的商人肖恩·麥克卡森曾想為競選國會議員的28位共和黨人象征性捐贈1776美金。但由于水門事件后強制實行聯邦限度，麥克卡森只得用這筆款項資助了16場競選。然而，根據最高法院4月2日的裁決，他又可以拿出支票簿來了。在麥克卡森起訴聯邦選舉委員會一案中，眾法官以5:4的投票比例，最終取消了競選獻金的兩處“總限額”，只對每名候選人一次全程競選作2600美金的“基本上限”要求。相比過去，聯邦政府部門的候選人所能接受個人捐款上限為48600美金，政黨和政治行動委員會的上限則為74600美金；如今個人捐款已不再受限了。
“There is no right more basic in our democracy,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's plurality opinion, “than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” The First Amendment's freedom-of-speech guarantee includes the right to “contribute to a candidate's campaign.” So although “money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some,” it is entitled to “vigorous” protection. It is unconstitutional, Mr Roberts wrote, to “restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others.”
“我國民主政治中最基本的一項權利，”首席法官約翰·羅伯茨在法庭多數意見書中寫道，“就是參與政治領導人選舉。”第一修正案中的言論自由權規定了“為候選人競選捐款。因此，盡管“政界金權有時會引起某些人的反感，”但這一權利有著“有力”保障。羅伯茨還寫道，“為了提升某些人的相對影響力而限制其他人的政治參與”不合憲法規定。
The only good reason to curb campaign donations, the Court ruled, is to prevent corruption. So caps on donations to individual candidates make sense: a “financial quid pro quo”, or appearance thereof, taints a $1m cheque to someone running for Congress. But if it is lawful to give $1,776 to one candidate, or 16, it is odd to argue that the same sum would corrupt the 17th recipient, or the 400th. “The Government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse.”
根據法庭判決，預防腐敗是唯一條限制競選捐款的充分理由。這樣一來，制定候選人的個人受捐總限額就合乎情理了：若是讓國會議員候選人另外尋求一樣補償，或是讓其支付公開露面的費用，他們便會臟了好好一張百萬支票。但若是法律允許候選人個人接收1776美金，或允許16位候選人接收1776美金，第17個人或是第400個人就不會臟了這筆錢。“政府不可對捐贈方資助的候選人人數或事業項數作限制，”首席法官羅伯茨寫道，“也不可在新聞中透露捐贈方所支持的候選人人數。”
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer and three other liberal justices argued that the ruling undervalues the “integrity of our governmental institutions”. Together with the Citizens Uniteddecision of 2010, Mr Breyer charged, McCutcheon “eviscerates our Nation's campaign-finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.” The majority fails to understand what donor dollars can buy, fumed Mr Breyer. “The threat...posed by the risk of special access and influence,” he wrote, “remains real.”
斯蒂芬·布雷耶同其他自由派法官對此表示飯隨，他們聲稱這一裁決低估了“美國政府機構的廉正”。布雷耶以2010年出臺的《公民聯合決議》為據，起訴麥克卡森“一棍子打倒了美國競選籌款法，該法旨在解決的民主合法性之嚴峻問題自此滯而無解。”布雷耶怒斥多數派沒能理解捐贈方的手中的金權。“這一威脅…由特殊渠道和特殊影響造成，”他如是寫道，“它一直存在著”。譯者：王卓
譯文屬譯生譯世
