来源：《华盛顿邮报》
原文刊登日期：2022年5月17日
The Supreme Court sided with Senator Ted Cruz on Monday in the conservative majority’s latest assault on the laws meant to fight political corruption. Their decision will enable campaign donors to funnel money into candidates’ personal bank accounts, revealing stunning indifference to the corrosive effects this could have on how the nation is governed and public confidence in those doing the governing.
周一，在占多数的保守派对旨在打击政治腐败的法律的最新攻击中，最高法院站在参议员泰德·克鲁兹一边。他们的决定将使竞选捐赠者能够将资金注入候选人的个人银行账户，显示出他们对这可能对国家治理方式和公众对执政者的信心产生的腐蚀性影响极为漠不关心。
The court opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., concerns when and how candidates may be repaid for personal loans they make to their campaigns. Federal rules previously barred candidates from taking more than $250,000 in repayment from their campaigns if that money came from donations made after Election Day. The logic is obvious. “Political contributions that will line a candidate’s own pockets, given after his election to office, pose a special danger of corruption,” Justice Elena Kagan explained in a dissent. “The candidate has a more-than-usual interest in obtaining the money, and is now in a position to give something in return. The donors well understand his situation, and are eager to take advantage of it. In short, everyone’s incentives are stacked to enhance the risk of dirty dealing.” If anything, the rules, permitting a quarter-million dollars in post-election repayments, were too weak.
由首席大法官小约翰·g·罗伯茨撰写的最高法院意见书关注的是候选人的竞选贷款何时以及如何偿还。联邦法规此前规定，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。逻辑是显而易见的。大法官埃琳娜·卡根在一份异议书中解释道：“在候选人当选后，就会用政治捐款中饱私囊，构成腐败的特殊危险。候选人对获得这笔钱有超乎寻常的兴趣，当选后有能力给予一些回报。捐赠者非常了解当选人的情况，并渴望利用这一点。简而言之，每个人的动机都增加了肮脏交易的风险。”实际上，允许25万美元的选举后还款的规定太软弱了。
Chief Justice Roberts dismissed such concerns, arguing that such regulations burden candidates funding their own campaigns. In fact, the rules that the court struck down limited the extent to which donors — not candidates — could help. Candidates have been free to spend as much of their personal wealth as they liked on their political careers; they just could not expect that others would pay them back for it.
首席大法官罗伯茨对这种担忧不以为然，认为这样的规定会给候选人自己筹措竞选资金带来负担。事实上，最高法院废除的规定限制了捐助者——而不是候选人——能够提供帮助的程度。候选人可以在自己的政治生涯中自由支配自己的个人财富；他们只是不能指望其他人会为此买单。
Chief Justice Roberts argued that “we are talking about repayment of a loan, not a gift,” emphasizing that the donations merely “restore the candidate to the status quo ante.” This reasoning is either naive or cynical. Making someone whole and simply handing them money are economically equivalent. Either way, a politician is obtaining direct financial benefits from a donor.
首席大法官罗伯茨（Roberts）辩称，“我们谈论的是偿还贷款，而不是礼物”，强调捐款只是“让候选人恢复竞选前的财务状态”。这种推理要么是幼稚，要么是见利忘义。让一个人不损失钱和简单地给他们钱在经济上是等价的。无论哪种方式，政治家都是从捐赠者那里获得直接的经济利益。
Not to worry, the chief justice argued. Federal law — for the moment — prohibits donors from contributing more than $2,900 to a campaign, so the risk of corruption is still limited. In the real world, $2,900 going into a personal bank account is not negligible. And big fundraisers who “bundle” contributions from others have become very adept at raising legally far larger sums for candidates, as well as making it clear whom those candidates owe.
首席大法官辩称，不用担心。联邦法律目前禁止捐赠者向单次竞选活动捐款超过2900美元，因此腐败的风险仍然有限。在现实世界中，2900美元进入个人银行账户不是微不足道的。那些“捆绑”他人捐款的大筹款者已经非常熟练地通过法律途径为候选人筹集更大数额的资金，并清楚地表明候选人欠谁的钱。
Congress passed a landmark campaign finance law in 2002, after decades of declining trust in government. Supreme Court conservatives have steadily dismantled it. Monday’s ruling is another chapter in this sorry tale, the moral of which is: When big donors pick up the tab for a candidate, it is the public that usually pays.
在数十年来对政府的信任不断下降之后，国会于2002年通过了一项具有里程碑意义的竞选融资法。最高法院的保守派已经逐步废除了它。周一的裁决是这个悲惨故事的另一章，其寓意是：当大捐赠者为候选人买单时，通常是公众付费。