經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)雙語版閱讀精選：政界金權(quán)

　　The justices open the door to more campaign contributions

　　法院為競(jìng)選贊助敞開大門

　　SHAUN McCUTCHEON, a businessman from Alabama, wanted to give a symbolic $1,776 to 28Republican candidates for Congress in 2012. Because of federal limits imposed after theWatergate scandal, Mr McCutcheon was allowed to donate this sum only to 16 campaigns. OnApril 2nd, however, the Supreme Court ruled that he can get his chequebook out again. InMcCutcheon 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 tocandidates 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(jìng)選國(guó)會(huì)議員的28位共和黨人象征性捐贈(zèng)1776美金。麥克卡森只得用這筆款項(xiàng)資助了16場(chǎng)競(jìng)選。然而，根據(jù)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(lián)邦選舉委員會(huì)一案中，眾法官以5:4的投票比例，最終取消了競(jìng)選獻(xiàn)金的兩處“總限額”，只對(duì)每名候選人一次全程競(jìng)選作2600美金的“基本上限”要求。相比過去，聯(lián)邦政府部門的候選人所能接受個(gè)人捐款上限為48600美金，政黨和政治行動(dòng)委員會(huì)的上限則為74600美金;如今個(gè)人捐款已不再受限了。

　　“There is no right more basic in our democracy,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in thecourt's plurality opinion, “than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” TheFirst Amendment's freedom-of-speech guarantee includes the right to “contribute to acandidate's campaign.” So although “money in politics may at times seem repugnant tosome,” 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 ofothers.”

　　“我國(guó)民主政治中最基本的一項(xiàng)權(quán)利，”首席法官約翰·羅伯茨在法庭多數(shù)意見書中寫道，“就是參與政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人選舉?！钡谝恍拚钢械难哉撟杂蓹?quán)規(guī)定了“為候選人競(jìng)選捐款。因此，盡管“政界金權(quán)有時(shí)會(huì)引起某些人的反感，”但這一權(quán)利有著“有力”保障。羅伯茨還寫道，“為了提升某些人的相對(duì)影響力而限制其他人的政治參與”不合憲法規(guī)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”, orappearance thereof, taints a $1m cheque to someone running for Congress. But if it is lawfulto give $1,776 to one candidate, or 16, it is odd to argue that the same sum would corruptthe 17th recipient, or the 400th. “The Government may no more restrict how manycandidates or causes a donor may support,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “than it may tell anewspaper how many candidates it may endorse.”

　　根據(jù)法庭判決，預(yù)防腐敗是唯一條限制競(jìng)選捐款的充分理由。這樣一來，制定候選人的個(gè)人受捐總限額就合乎情理了：若是讓國(guó)會(huì)議員候選人另外尋求一樣補(bǔ)償，或是讓其支付公開露面的費(fèi)用，他們便會(huì)臟了好好一張百萬支票。但若是法律允許候選人個(gè)人接收1776美金，或允許16位候選人接收1776美金，第17個(gè)人或是第400個(gè)人就不會(huì)臟了這筆錢。“政府不可對(duì)捐贈(zèng)方資助的候選人人數(shù)或事業(yè)項(xiàng)數(shù)作限制，”首席法官羅伯茨寫道，“也不可在新聞中透露捐贈(zèng)方所支持的候選人人數(shù)?！?/p>

　　In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer and three other liberal justices argued that the rulingundervalues the “integrity of our governmental institutions”. Together with the CitizensUniteddecision of 2010, Mr Breyer charged, McCutcheon “eviscerates our Nation's campaign-finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems ofdemocratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.” The majority fails tounderstand what donor dollars can buy, fumed Mr Breyer. “The threat...posed by the risk ofspecial access and influence,” he wrote, “remains real.”

　　斯蒂芬·布雷耶同其他自由派法官對(duì)此表示飯隨，他們聲稱這一裁決低估了“美國(guó)政府機(jī)構(gòu)的廉正”。布雷耶以2010年出臺(tái)的《公民聯(lián)合決議》為據(jù)，起訴麥克卡森“一棍子打倒了美國(guó)競(jìng)選籌款法，該法旨在解決的民主合法性之嚴(yán)峻問題自此滯而無解?！辈祭滓舛鄶?shù)派沒能理解捐贈(zèng)方的手中的金權(quán)?！斑@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”。

---

猜你喜歡：

1.英語雙語美文分享

2.關(guān)于經(jīng)濟(jì)的英語短文閱讀

3.經(jīng)典英語故事雙語閱讀

4.金融英語銀行雙語閱讀

5.英語經(jīng)典美文閱讀翻譯精選

,600 per candidate,per election intact. Where individuals had been limited to total contributions of ,600 tocandidates for federal office and ,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(jìng)選國(guó)會(huì)議員的28位共和黨人象征性捐贈(zèng)1776美金。麥克卡森只得用這筆款項(xiàng)資助了16場(chǎng)競(jìng)選。然而，根據(jù)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(lián)邦選舉委員會(huì)一案中，眾法官以5:4的投票比例，最終取消了競(jìng)選獻(xiàn)金的兩處“總限額”，只對(duì)每名候選人一次全程競(jìng)選作2600美金的“基本上限”要求。相比過去，聯(lián)邦政府部門的候選人所能接受個(gè)人捐款上限為48600美金，政黨和政治行動(dòng)委員會(huì)的上限則為74600美金;如今個(gè)人捐款已不再受限了。

　　“There is no right more basic in our democracy,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in thecourt's plurality opinion, “than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” TheFirst Amendment's freedom-of-speech guarantee includes the right to “contribute to acandidate's campaign.” So although “money in politics may at times seem repugnant tosome,” 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 ofothers.”

　　“我國(guó)民主政治中最基本的一項(xiàng)權(quán)利，”首席法官約翰·羅伯茨在法庭多數(shù)意見書中寫道，“就是參與政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人選舉?！钡谝恍拚钢械难哉撟杂蓹?quán)規(guī)定了“為候選人競(jìng)選捐款。因此，盡管“政界金權(quán)有時(shí)會(huì)引起某些人的反感，”但這一權(quán)利有著“有力”保障。羅伯茨還寫道，“為了提升某些人的相對(duì)影響力而限制其他人的政治參與”不合憲法規(guī)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”, orappearance thereof, taints a class="main">