奥巴马每周电视讲话 不能让企业插手我们的民主

Weekly Address: President Obama Challenges Politicians Benefiting from Citizens United Ruling to Defend Corporate 1 Influence in Our Elections

 每周电视讲话：奥巴马总统质询从美国公民联合案【注1】裁决结果受益的政客，捍卫选举不受公司影响

 

WASHINGTON – In this week’s address, the President urged Republican leaders in Congress to end their obstruction 2 of a bipartisan bill that will reduce the influence wielded 4 by corporations and foreign entities 5.  The President vowed 6 to continue the fight for reform and transparency, and said elected officials who benefit from corporate or foreign-funded ads should either defend the ads or join the bipartisan effort to stop them.

 华盛顿消息：在本周的讲话中，总统敦促国会共和党领导人停止阻挠旨在降低各类公司和外国团体发挥影响力的两党法案。总统承诺将继续为改革和增加透明度而奋斗，并表示从公司和外商投资广告中受益的当选官员要么为这些广告辩护要么站出来加入两党联合阵营反对这些做法。

 

As the political season heats up, Americans are already being inundated 7 with the usual phone calls, mailings, and TV ads from campaigns all across the country.  But this summer, they’re also seeing a flood of attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names.  We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them.

 随着政治热季渐渐升温，全美各地的人们已经淹没于各类惯常的竞选电话，邮件和广告中。但今年夏天，人们也看到了一股由起着听起来无恶意的名字的影子团体发布的攻击性广告的洪流。我们既不知道谁在背后运营这些广告也不知道谁为它们出资付款。

 

The reason this is happening is because of a decision by the Supreme 8 Court in the Citizens United case – a decision that now allows big corporations to spend unlimited 9 amounts of money to influence our elections.  They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads – and worst of all, they don’t even have to reveal who is actually paying for them.  You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation.  You don’t know if it’s BP.  You don’t know if it’s a big insurance company or a Wall Street Bank.  A group can hide behind a phony name like “Citizens for a Better Future,” even if a more accurate name would be “Corporations for Weaker Oversight 10.”

 导致这些的原因就是最高法院关于公民联合案的裁决结果——该决定允许大的公司团体可以为了影响选举结果而不受限制进行资金投入。他们可以购买价值数百万美元的电视广告——更糟糕的是，他们甚至根本就不用透露谁最终为这些广告付钱。即使是外资控制的公司，你们也不会知道。即使是BP，你们也不会知道。即使是大保险公司或华尔街银行你们亦不会知道。这样的团体可以藏在像“美好未来公民联合”的虚假名字后面，即使更确切的名字可能是“更松散监管促进公司”。

 

We tried to fix this last month.  There was a proposal supported by Democrats 11 and Republicans that would’ve required corporate political advertisers to reveal who’s funding their activities.  When special interests take to the airwaves, whoever is running and funding the ad would have to appear in the advertisement and take responsibility for it – like a company’s CEO or an organization’s biggest contributor.  And foreign-controlled corporations and entities would be restricted from spending money to influence American elections – just as they were in the past.

 我们上月尝试纠正这个问题。提出了一项民主党和共和党共同支持的提案，要求发布政治性广告的公司透露谁为他们的活动提供资金。当特殊利益团体发布广播电视广告时，无论是谁运营广告或为广告出资，都需要在广告中表明身份并为其负责——如同一个公司的CEO或一个组织的最大捐助人一样。而且外资控制的公司和团体出资影响美国选举的行为将受到限制——如同以往一样。

 

You would think that making these reforms would be a matter of common sense.  You’d think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections wouldn’t be a partisan 3 issue.

 你可能认为做出这样的改革是个常识性的问题。你可能会认为降低公司甚至外资公司对我们选举的影响是个党派问题。

 

But the Republican leaders in Congress said no.  In fact, they used their power to block the issue from even coming up for a vote.

 但国会的共和党领导人们不这样认为。实际上，他们利用他们的权力阻止这项议题参与投票表决。

 

This can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the public in the dark.  They don’t want you to know which interests are paying for the ads.  The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.

 这只能意味着对方的领导人希望让公众处在黑暗之中。他们不想让你们知道哪个利益团体为这些广告出资。正是这些不想透露真相的人才是有事情需要掩盖的人。

 

Well, we cannot allow the corporate takeover of our democracy.  So we’re going to continue to fight for reform and transparency.  And I urge all of you to take up the same fight.  Let’s challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us in stopping it.

 当然，我们绝不允许公司插手我们的民主。因此我们一直坚持不懈的为了改革和透明度而奋争。而且我也号召大家一起参加战斗。让我们一起质问每一个从这些广告受益的当选官员，要么为这种行为辩护，要么加入我们一起阻止它。

 

At a time of such challenge for America, we can’t afford these political games.  Millions of Americans are struggling to get by, and their voices shouldn’t be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret, special interest advertising 12.  Their voices should be heard.

 在美国遇到如此挑战的时刻，我们不能承受这样的政治游戏。无数美国人民正在挣扎度日，他们的声音不应该淹没于特殊利益团体暗中运行的数百万美元的广告之中。他们的声音应该被大家听到。

 

Let’s not forget that a century ago, it was a Republican President – Teddy Roosevelt – who first tried to tackle the issue of corporate influence on our elections.  He actually called it “one of the principal sources of corruption 13 in our political affairs.”  And he proposed strict limits on corporate influence in elections.  “Every special interest is entitled to justice,” he said.  “but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office.”

 我们不要忘了一个世纪之前，正是共和党总统——泰迪·罗斯福——他第一次就解决公司影响选举的问题进行尝试。他甚至称这种行为是“我们政治事务中腐败的主要来源之一”。并对公司影响选举的行为进行了严厉的限制。他说：“每个利益团体都有权享有公正，但并不是每个都享有国会投票权，法庭申辩权和代表任何公职部门的权力。”

 

We now face a similar challenge, and a similar opportunity to prevent special interests from gaining even more clout 14 in Washington.  This shouldn’t be a Democratic issue or a Republican issue.  This is an issue that goes to whether or not we will have a democracy that works for ordinary Americans – a government of, by, and for the people.  Let’s show the cynics and the special interests that we still can.

 现在我们面临同样的挑战，同样的机会来阻止特殊利益集团获得在华盛顿更大的影响力。这不应该是民主党或共和党单方面的问题。这是一个我们能否拥有民主来为普通美国民众服务的问题——一个代表人民，由人民选举，为人民服务的政府。让我们向居心不良的人和特殊利益集团展示我们的决心，我们依然可以说到做到。

 

注1：Citizens United：公民联合组织，一个保守派非盈利组织，总裁是David Bossie，成立于1988年，现在办公地点在华盛顿特区宾夕法里亚大街。该组织发布了一系列政治类广告，包括批评克林顿总统反恐政策的纪录片的广告，支持布什总统的反恐纪录片的广告。

the Citizens United case：公民联合诉联邦选举委员会案（Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission）。公民联合原计划播出宣传批评时任参议员、总统候选人希拉里·克林顿的电影《希拉里：一部电影》的广告。根据2002年颁布的两党选举改革法案（又称麦凯恩-费恩古尔德法案，由共和党议员约翰·麦凯恩与民主党议员拉斯·法因戈尔德于2002年提出）441b条款，企业或团体在初选前30天或大选前60天资助跟竞选有关的、或抵毁候选人的言论是不被允许的。2008年1月，哥伦比亚区地区法院就以初选前30天内资助该广告为由判联合公民败诉。法庭认为此电影的唯一目的就是抵毁希拉里·克林顿，而联合公民则辩称电影是基于事实和超越党派的。此后（2008年8月18日）公民联合上诉最高法院，经过一年半的时间，最高法院于2010年1月21日做出判决，认定限制商业机构资助联邦选举候选人的两党选举改革法案的条款违反宪法中的言论自由原则。

尽管尘埃落定但争议不断，反对方认为这一判决将会造成大量金钱介入竞选活动，使民主政治腐化。