来源：《美联社新闻》
原文刊登日期：2022年5月17日
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sided Monday with Republican Senator Ted Cruz and struck down a provision of federal campaign finance law. The court, by a 6-3 vote, said the provision Cruz challenged limiting the repayment of personal loans from candidates to their campaigns violates the Constitution.
星期一，最高法院占多数的保守派支持共和党参议员泰德·克鲁兹，推翻了联邦竞选融资法的一项规定。最高法院以6票赞成、3票反对的结果表示，克鲁兹挑战的限制候选人在竞选活动中偿还个人贷款的规定违反了宪法。
The Biden administration had defended it as an anti-corruption measure, but Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the government had not been able to show that the provision “furthers a permissible anticorruption goal, rather than the impermissible objective of simply limiting the amount of money in politics.”
拜登政府曾为这一条款辩护，称其是一项反腐败措施，但首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨在多数派意见书中写道，政府未能证明该条款“推进了一个容许的反腐败目标，而不是简单地限制政治资金的数额这一不容许的目标”。
Justice Elena Kagan disagreed, writing that for two decades the provision checked “crooked exchanges.” Kagan said in a dissent for herself and the court’s two other liberals that the majority, in striking down the provision, “greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought right to stop.”
大法官埃琳娜·卡根不同意这一观点，她写道，20年来，该条款遏制了“不正当的交易”。卡根代表她本人和最高法院的另外两名自由派大法官提出异议，认为多数派否决这一条款，“为国会认为应该停止的所有肮脏交易开了绿灯”。
The case involved a section of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The provision said that if a candidate lends his or her campaign money before an election, the campaign cannot repay the candidate more than $250,000 using money raised after Election Day. The provision said loans could still be repaid with money raised before the election.
该案涉及2002年《两党竞选改革法案》的一条款。该条款规定，如果候选人在选举前贷款竞选，则选举日之后筹集的资金用于偿还竞选贷款的数额不得超过25万美元。该条款称，仍可以用选举前筹集的资金偿还竞选贷款。
Cruz, who has served in the Senate since 2013, loaned his campaign $260,000 the day before the 2018 general election for the purpose of challenging the law.
克鲁兹自2013年以来一直在参议院任职，他在2018年大选前一天故意借了26万美元用于竞选，以挑战这项法律。
Cruz’s spokesman, Steve Guest, said the decision would “help invigorate our democratic process by making it easier for challengers to take on and defeat career politicians.”
克鲁兹的发言人史蒂夫·盖斯特表示，最高法院的裁决将“使挑战者更容易与职业政客较量并击败他们，从而有助于振兴我们的民主进程。”
Kagan, in her dissent, described one result now that the provision has been struck down. A candidate could lend his or her campaign $500,000 and, after winning, use donor money to pay that back in full, she said. The grateful politician might then respond to donors’ money with “favorable legislation, maybe prized appointments, maybe lucrative contracts,” she wrote. “The politician is happy; the donors are happy. The only loser is the public. It inevitably suffers from government corruption.”
卡根持不同意见，她描述了该条款被废除后的一个结果。她说，候选人可以借50万美元用于竞选，在获胜后，用捐款全额偿还。她写道，心怀感激的政客可能会用“有利的立法、可能有价值的任命、可能有利润丰厚的合同”来回应捐赠者的捐款。“政客很高兴；捐赠者很高兴。唯一的输家是公众。公众不可避免地受到政府腐败的影响。”
Roberts, however, noted in his majority opinion that individual contributions to candidates for federal office, including those made after the candidate has won the election, are capped at $2,900 per election.
然而，罗伯茨在他的多数意见书中指出，对联邦职位候选人的个人捐款，包括在候选人赢得选举后的捐款，每次选举的上限为2900美元。
Cruz had argued that the provision made candidates think twice about lending money because it substantially increased the risk that any candidate loan will never be fully repaid. A lower court had agreed the provision was unconstitutional.
克鲁兹认为，这项条款使候选人在贷款时三思而行，因为它大大增加了候选人贷款永远无法完全偿还的风险。下级法院以前已判定该条款违宪。
The case may be most directly important to candidates for federal office who want to make large loans to their campaigns. But the administration has also said that in the past the great majority of candidate loans were for less than $250,000 and therefore the provision Cruz challenged did not apply.
对于那些希望用大笔贷款竞选的联邦职位候选人来说，这一案件可能最为直接重要。但政府也表示，过去绝大多数候选人贷款的金额都在25万美元以下，这种情况下，克鲁兹挑战的这一条款用不上。