双语时事：政治捐款不能决定选举结果

2014-07-08 16:32:48来源：可可英语

　　Other billionaires have been more fortunate with their political spending. Although the precise amount of money that the Ambani family directed towards the campaign of Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, is not known, it is widely accepted that Mr Modi and his Bharatiya Janata party massively outspent the Congress party in the recent general election. The industrialist Ambani brothers were generous funders of the BJP and have, in turn, done well out of the stock market boom that followed Mr Modi’s victory.

　　其他亿万富翁的政治支出似乎更为幸运。尽管外界并不知晓安巴尼(Ambani)家族向印度总理纳伦德拉•莫迪(Narendra Modi)的竞选具体投入了多少资金，但人们普遍认为，莫迪及其领导的印度人民党(BJP)在最近大选中的支出远远超出国大党(Congress party)。实业家安巴尼兄弟是印度人民党的慷慨捐款者，反过来也受益于莫迪当选后出现的股市涨势。

　　Courting the rich is both necessary and dangerous for politicians. Tony Blair and the Labour party had to return £1m to Bernie Ecclestone after suggestions were made that the Formula One boss had influenced government policy on cigarette advertising. The financial relationship between Nicolas Sarkozy and Liliane Bettencourt, an elderly heiress, provoked a criminal investigation – although the former French president was eventually cleared of wrongdoing.

　　对于政治人士而言，寻求富人的支持既是必要的，也是危险的。托尼•布莱尔(Tony Blair)和工党(Labour party)不得不向一级方程式(F1)老板伯尼•埃克尔斯通(Bernie Ecclestone)归还100万英镑，因为有人称，埃克尔斯通影响了英国政府有关香烟广告的政策。尼古拉斯•萨科齐(Nicolas Sarkozy)与年事已高的女继承人利利亚娜•贝当古(Liliane Bettencourt)之间的金钱关系引发了一桩刑事调查，尽管这位法国前总统最终被证明是清白的。

　　It is rare to find people who have a completely consistent attitude to billionaire-funded politics. George Soros, the financier, is a hate figure for the American right but a hero to liberals because of the causes he chooses to support. The Koch brothers, conservative industrialists, evoke similar reactions – but in reverse.

　　我们很少发现人们会对亿万富翁资助的政治持完全一致的态度。由于他选择支持的事业，对于美国右翼人士而言，融资家乔治•索罗斯(George Soros)是一个令人憎恨的人物，而对于自由派而言，他却是一个英雄。保守的实业家科赫兄弟(Koch)则引发相反的反应。

　　Once they calm down, all sides might agree that it would be better to have political systems not so much at the mercy of the whims of individual billionaires (or, in the case of Scotland, mere multimillionaires). But this is easier said than done. In an age of front organisations and fragmented media, capping campaign contributions or spending is far from straightforward. In the US, the government attempted to place legal limits on the amount an individual could give to a single campaign. But that could not prevent multiple contributions to various political organisations, with similar goals – such as the political action committees that then rallied behind individual candidates. The Supreme Court has ruled that political spending is a form of free speech – making caps on individual contributions illegal, and rendering it all but impossible to rein in free-speaking and free-spending billionaires.

　　一旦他们平静下来，各方或许都会认为，不让政治制度受到亿万富翁(或者，在苏格兰的例子里只是百万富翁们)愿望的严重影响将是更好的结果。但说起来容易做起来难。在幌子组织和媒体分化的时代，限制竞选捐款或支出远非直截了当。在美国，政府试图对个人向单一竞选活动的捐款数额设置法定上限。但这不可能阻止富人向多个目标相似的不同政治组织(例如几个政治行动委员会，由其进而支持个别候选人)捐款。美国最高法院裁定，政治支出是一种言论自由的形式，这使得对个人捐款封顶被界定为非法，并导致社会几乎不可能迫使亿万富翁收敛言论和支出。

　　The British used to congratulate themselves on controlling election campaign spending, banning television advertising by political parties. But, in the age of social media, that measure looks increasingly beside the point.

　　英国曾经为控制竞选支出而自我庆幸，禁止政党在电视上做广告。但在社交媒体时代，这一措施看上去越来越无足轻重了。

本文关键字: 双语时事政治捐款不能决定选举结果