三、美国金钱政治的制度化形式
3. The institutionalized system of US money politics has come into being.文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/8536.html
文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/8536.html
19世纪后期，美国的金钱政治发展成为“政治分肥”制度。竞争获胜的政党通常将官位分配给为选举做出贡献的人，主要是本党主要骨干和提供竞选经费的金主。“政治分肥”造成政治腐败蔓延，官员贪污舞弊，行政效率低下。自20世纪初开始，美国试图对政治捐献做出一些限制，但没有改变美国民主制度的金钱政治本质。制度调整永远为金钱政治留下漏洞和后门，实际使金钱政治取得合法地位。文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/8536.html
文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/8536.html
In the late 19th century, US money politics developed into a “pork-barreling” political system. The political party that wins the competition usually gives official positions to those who have contributed to the election campaign, mainly the backbone of the political party and the funders who provide campaign funds for the party. “Pork barreling” has led to the spread of corruption in the political sector and among the officials, and it has also decreased the administrative efficiency. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the United States has tried to impose some restrictions on political contributions, but it has never changed the very nature of US democracy, which is money politics. The adjustments to the systems always leave loopholes and backdoors for money politics, and actually give money politics a legal status.文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/8536.html
文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/8536.html
第一，“超级筹款人”制度合法规避捐款限额。“超级筹款人”是拥有大量财富和社会关系的人，比如企业高管、对冲基金管理人、演艺界明星或说客。他们人脉多，神通广大，能利用个人关系网把大量小额捐款人凑在一起，为候选人短时间内筹集大量资金。在2016年美国总统选举中，民主党候选人希拉里·克林顿个人筹款金额中的三分之一是由1000个“超级筹款人”帮助完成的。同时，“超级筹款人”制度还能绕过法律有关捐款限额的规定，将总额超限的捐款划到许多人头下面，使其符合个人捐款上限，最后才捆绑在一起捐给某位候选人。接受捆绑捐款的候选人，自然知道谁是真正的金主。这使得富豪和大企业能轻易地用金钱换取政治影响力。文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/8536.html
文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/8536.html
First, the “super-fundraiser” system can legally avoid donation limits. A “super fundraiser” is someone who has a lot of wealth and social connections, such as corporate executives, hedge fund managers, showbiz stars, or lobbyists. They have many connections and resources, and are able to use their personal networks to bring together a large number of small donors to raise a lot of funds for a candidate within a short period of time. For instance, in the 2016 US presidential election, 1,000 “super fundraisers” helped the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, to collect one-third of the personal donations for her campaign. Under the “super-fundraiser” system, a big personal donation that surpasses the limit can be divided into smaller parts that are under the limit and put under other persons’ names. That is how big donations become legalized. A candidate who receives these kinds of donations is clear about who provided him or her with such big donations. This makes it easy for the affluent people and large enterprises to trade money for political influence.文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/8536.html
文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/8536.html
第二，联邦最高法院裁决取消对“软钱”的限制。2002年的《两党竞选改革法》限制了那些通过捐给政党来支持特定候选人的“软钱”，即不受《联邦竞选法》限制但又用于影响联邦选举的资金。但是，这个法律受到持续挑战。2007年，联邦最高法院对“威斯康星州‘生命权利’组织诉联邦选举委员会案”做出裁决，认定《两党竞选改革法》有关限制企业、工会和贸易团体资助特定选举广告的条款违反了宪法第一修正案关于言论自由的规定。2010年，联邦最高法院在“联合公民诉联邦选举委员会案”的裁决中，认定《两党竞选改革法》关于竞选最后阶段限制公司、工会以营利或非营利的目的资助联邦选举候选人的相关规定违反宪法中的言论自由原则。这一裁决将《两党竞选改革法》的内容否决殆尽，使得“软钱”可以合法地大规模进入选举活动，打开了金钱肆意流入政治的闸门。2014年，联邦最高法院在“麦卡沃恩诉联邦选举委员会案”的裁决中大幅放宽了对政治捐款的限制，在保留个人对单个候选人捐助上限为2600美元的情况下，取消个人对全体联邦候选人及政党委员会的捐款总额限制。这意味着，富人可以同时捐助很多联邦候选人，更可以无限制地向自己支持的政党捐款。
Second, the SCOTUS has ruled to lift restrictions on “soft money”. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 restricted “soft money” donated to political parties to support specific candidates, namely the donations that were not restricted by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) but used to influence federal elections. Nevertheless, this Act has been challenged constantly. In 2007, the SCOTUS ruled in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., that the provisions of the BCRA, which restrict corporations, unions, and trade groups from funding certain advertising by political parties, violate the First Amendment’s provisions on the freedom of speech. In 2010, the SCOTUS ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that provisions of the BCRA, which restrict corporations and unions from funding federal election candidates for or not for profit during the final stage of the campaign, violate the principle of freedom of expression in the US Constitution. This ruling completely vetoed the contents of the BCRA, allowing “soft money” to legally enter elections on a large scale and letting money to wantonly rush into the political sector. In 2014, the SCOTUS’ ruling in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission significantly relaxed restrictions on political contributions. It removed limits on the total amount of contributions made by an individual to federal candidates and political party committees while retaining the $2,600 limit on an individual’s donation to a candidate. This means that the wealthy people can donate to many federal candidates at the same time, and they can donate unlimitedly to the political party they support.
第三，超级政治行动委员会是金钱政治最重要的表现形式。除了直接向候选人和政党提供政治捐款外，美国富人和企业还可以通过超级政治行动委员会来进行政治捐赠。政治行动委员会产生于20世纪30年代，是一种由企业或独立政治团体组成的政治筹款机构，主要是为了规避美国法律对个人和机构政治捐款的限制。它们从许多个人手中收集金钱，然后决定为哪些候选人捐款。政治行动委员会与大公司和特定利益集团关系密切，代表它们进行造势宣传，支持或反对某位候选人，实际上是大公司和利益集团参与选举的“白手套”。1971年《联邦选举法》通过后，政治行动委员会由于限制较少而进入大发展时期。大量企业、个人和利益集团的金钱通过政治行动委员会管道参与竞选。2010年联邦最高法院的裁决取消了企业与个人向独立支出的政治行动委员会的捐款上限。由此，政治行动委员会进入鼎盛时期，大量超级政治行动委员会应运而生。根据无党派非营利研究机构“政治责任中心”的数据，截至2016年8月8日，美国登记注册的超级政治行动委员会有2316个。超级政治行动委员会有强大的募款实力，在各个方面对选举产生影响，尤其是企业和富豪可以将自己手中的资金无限制地投入超级政治行动委员会，从而间接影响选举。在2016年总统选举中，获得捐款最多的超级政治行动委员会是支持民主党候选人希拉里·克林顿的“美国优先行动”，达到1.76亿美元。富豪索罗斯向“美国优先行动”捐款600万美元，而对冲基金管理人托马斯·斯泰尔更向支持希拉里的超级政治行动委员会提供5700万美元捐款。
Third, super political action committees (PACs) are the most important manifestation of money politics. In addition to making political contributions directly to candidates and political parties, the wealthy class and corporations of the United States can also make political donations through super PACs. PACs came into being in the 1930s. A PAC is a political committee consisting of corporations and independent political groups, and it is organized for the purpose of raising political donations and circumventing limits on personal and corporate donations, which are imposed by relevant regulations of US laws. A PAC collects money from many individuals and then decides on the candidates it donates to. As it is closely related to certain large corporations and specific interest groups, a PAC often launches publicity campaigns to support or oppose a certain candidate and participates in elections on behalf of these corporations and interest groups. After the release of the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971, PACs entered a period of vigorous development due to fewer restrictions. A large amount of money from corporations, individuals, and interest groups participates in the elections through the channels offered by PACs. In 2010, a ruling of the SCOTUS removed the limit on corporate and individual contributions to independent PACs. Because of this, PACs have entered their heyday, and a large number of super PACs came into being. According to data from the Political Responsibility Center, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization, as of August 8, 2016, there were 2,316 super PACs registered in the United States. Super PACs have strong fundraising capacity and exert influence on every aspect of an election. Corporations and wealthy people can inject their funds into super PACs without restrictions to indirectly affect an election. In the 2016 presidential election, the super PAC that received the most donations, which amounted to as much as $176 million, was Priorities USA Action, which was in support of the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Soros, the super-rich US investor, donated $6 million to Priorities USA Action, and Thomas Steyer, a hedge fund manager, contributed $57 million to another super PAC in support of Hillary Clinton.
四、金钱政治后果恶劣
4. Money politics brings serious consequences.
第一，金钱政治剥夺了普通民众的政治权利。尽管美国经常炫耀一人一票的美式民主，但美国低收入者的投票权实际上受到严苛限制。据《美国新闻与世界报道》披露，2010年至2015年，美国有21个州通过了限制投票权的新法律，有14个州在2016年总统选举中实施了限制投票权行使的新措施。这些法律和措施的主旨是阻止穷人登记投票。美国《新闻周刊》网站2017年11月21日报道，成千上万的美国人因贫穷而被剥夺了投票权。已有9个州通过立法，剥夺任何未付律师费或法院罚款者的投票权。仅在亚拉巴马州，就有超过10万名欠费者被剔除出选民名单，约占该州选民人口的3%。这导致美国选举投票率降低。美国2014年中期选举的投票率为20世纪40年代以来的最低，全国的平均投票率仅为37%。
First, money politics deprives ordinary people of their political rights. Although the United States often shows off its “one person, one vote” US-style democracy, the reality is that the voting rights of low-income US citizens are severely restricted. As reported by U.S. News & World Report, from 2010 to 2015, 21 states in the United States formulated new laws restricting voting rights, and 14 states implemented new measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in the 2016 presidential election. The main purpose of these laws and measures was to prevent the poor from registering to vote. As reported by the website of Newsweek on November 21, 2017, thousands of US citizens have been deprived of their voting rights because of poverty. Nine states in the United States have passed legislation depriving the citizens in arrears with attorney fees or court fines of the right to vote. In Alabama alone, more than 100,000 US citizens in arrears have been removed from the voter list, accounting for approximately three percent of the state’s voter population. This has led to a lower turnout in US elections. The turnout rate slumped to its lowest level since the 1940s during the 2014 US midterm election, where the national average turnout rate was only 37 percent.
第二，政府官职成为富人和上层阶级的禁脔。按照美国政治惯例，获得选举胜利的候选人通常会把一些政府官职奖赏给那些选举有功人士，其中就包括捐款大户和重要筹款人。美国历任总统上任后，都会任命一批金主当驻外大使。2000年总统选举后，政府中三分之一的新职位被胜选总统的亲友和金主接掌。2008年总统选举时支持胜选总统的556名“超级筹款人”中，三分之一的人都在时任政府内阁中获得职位或者成为顾问，其中筹款超过50万美元的筹款人有近80%都获得了重要职位。
Second, government posts have become exclusive for rich people and the upper class. According to the US political practices, after winning an election, the elected candidate will usually reward those persons who have made significant contributions to the election campaign, such as major donors and fundraisers, with government posts. After taking office, the newly elected US president will usually appoint a group of major donors as ambassadors. After the 2000 presidential election, one-third of the new positions in the government were taken over by relatives, friends, and major donors of the winning president. Among the 556 “super fundraisers” who supported the winning president in the 2008 presidential election campaign, one-third of them obtained government posts or became consultants in the then administration, and 80 percent of the fundraisers who raised more than $500,000 obtained important positions.
第三，金钱政治明目张胆地向富人输送利益。政治献金带来的一个恶果是，少数富人拥有了比绝大多数人更大的影响力，导致政府政策图利富人、损害穷人利益。金钱影响立法和政府决策。富人通过竞选捐款和利益回报承诺俘获政客，使政客代表他们的利益立法。通过金钱选举产生的总统和政府，必定会在制定政策时向有钱人倾斜，或明或暗地向资本输送利益。这是一种变相的权钱交易。众所周知，2017年上任的共和党政府是富人政府。美国国会2017年通过的《减税与就业法案》，虽然有“减税”之名，但并非普遍减税，而只是给富人和大企业减税，穷人反而要加税。根据这个法案，一方面，富人家庭缴纳所得税的税率大幅降低，从39.6%降至35%，足足降低了4.6个百分点；另一方面，最贫穷家庭缴纳所得税的税率却从10%增加到12%。这个法案使最贫穷家庭遭受金钱损失，最富有家庭获得巨大收益。2017年底的盖洛普民调显示，56%的美国人反对这一税收改革法案，支持的只有29%。就企业税收而言，《减税与就业法案》把大型集团公司和上市企业等股份有限公司的所得税税率从35%下调至20%，降低了15个百分点，幅度很大，但受益企业仅占美国全部企业总数的8.6%。相反，占企业总数90%以上的个人独资企业和合伙企业等小企业却无法享受减税政策，需要根据合格经营所得征收个人所得税，允许抵扣20%收入，适用最高边际税率37%。金钱政治蚕食了社会平等，从根本上腐蚀了美国的社会公正。
Third, money politics is blatantly delivering benefits to the rich. A negative consequence of political contributions is that the rich people, who are fewer in number, have greater influence than the vast majority of the people, leading to the formulation of government policies that benefit the rich and harm the interests of the poor. As money affects legislation and government decisions, the rich people can make politicians serve them through campaign donations and promises of the return of benefits and legislate on their behalf. The presidents and administrations elected with the help of money will definitely favor the rich when formulating policies, and they will openly or implicitly pass on benefits to the rich. This is a disguised transaction of money and power. It is a well-known fact that the Republican administration taking office in 2017 is an administration representing the rich class of the United States. The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), adopted by the US Congress in 2017, claimed to reduce taxes, but it was not aimed to carry out an across-the-board tax cut. The FUTA has only cut taxes for the rich class and large corporations. It has even increased taxes for the poor people. Under the FUTA, the income tax rate for rich families has been greatly reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, a significant reduction of 4.6 percentage points, and the income tax rate for the poorest families has been increased from 10 percent to 12 percent. That is how this Act has benefited the richest families while harming the economic interests of the poorest families. A Gallup poll conducted at the end of 2017 showed that 56 percent of US citizens surveyed opposed the FUTA, and only 29 percent supported it. As to corporate tax, the FUTA reduced the income tax rate of joint-stock companies, such as large corporations and listed companies, from 35 percent to 20 percent, a remarkable reduction of 15 percentage points. Nevertheless, only 8.6 percent of the US enterprises can benefit from this tax reduction policy, and about 90 percent of the US companies, which are small enterprises such as sole-proprietorship enterprises and partnership enterprises, cannot benefit from it. Under the FUTA, owners of these small enterprises may have to pay personal income tax at the top rate, which is 37 percent, and only 20 percent deduction can be calculated on their taxable income. Money politics erodes social equality and fundamentally undermines social justice in the United States.
第四，金钱政治增加解决紧迫政治社会问题的难度。在美国，枪支泛滥、枪支暴力是一个困扰社会多年的重大政治社会问题。校园枪杀案和公共场所枪杀案等大规模枪支暴力案件时有发生。美国每年有3万多人死于枪支造成的他杀、事故和自杀，有1万多人死于枪支暴力，有20多万人因枪击受伤。如果严格控制枪支，这些伤亡大多可以避免。但是，美国步枪协会等反对控枪的利益集团通过介入选举和进行游说成功地瓦解了控枪努力。这些利益集团为美国总统选举和国会选举提供大量政治捐款，仅2010年至2018年间就通过政治行动委员会捐款1.13亿美元。美国步枪协会是美国主要的反控枪组织，也是美国最有影响力的院外游说组织，每年运营经费高达2.5亿美元，竞选年份经费更多。由于投入大量金钱，以美国步枪协会为代表的美国反枪支管制利益集团取得了巨大成功，几乎封杀了所有控枪法案，使美国枪支管制更加宽松。
Fourth, money politics makes it more difficult for the United States to solve its pressing political and social problems. In the United States, the proliferation of guns and gun violence are major political and social problems, which have plagued US society for many years. Mass shooting incidents in schools and other public places frequently occur. Every year in the United States, more than 30,000 people die from homicides, accidents, and suicides caused by guns; more than 10,000 people die from gun violence; and more than 200,000 people are injured by guns. Most of these deaths and injuries would have been avoided if guns had been strictly controlled during these years. Nevertheless, interest groups such as the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), who oppose gun control, have successfully disrupted the governmental gun control efforts by participating in elections and lobbying. These interest groups have made significant political contributions to the US presidential and congressional elections. They donated $113 million through PACs between 2010 and 2018 alone. The NRA is the main anti-gun control organization in the United States and the most influential outside lobbying organization in the country. Its annual operating expenses are as high as $250 million, and this number will increase in a campaign year. Due to the large amount of money they have invested, the anti-gun control interest groups represented by the NRA have achieved great success and thwarted nearly all the gun control bills, further relaxing US gun control.
金钱政治暴露美国社会本质。美国一直标榜自己是民主和人权的“楷模”，要全世界都向它学习。但是，无所不在、根深蒂固的金钱政治彻底戳破了美国的谎言。美式民主是富人和资本家的民主，跟下层民众没有多少关系。美国宪法规定的民主权利，只有口袋里有足够多金钱的人才能享受。在金钱支配政治的美国，没有金钱，一切关于政治参与的议论都是空谈。金钱政治无情地碾压了“美式人权”。
Money politics exposes the nature of US society and the lies of the United States when it is praising itself as the best example of exercising democracy and safeguarding human rights for the world. “US-style democracy” is the democracy of the rich people and the capitalists. It seldom benefits the lower classes of US society. The democratic rights stipulated in the US Constitution can only be enjoyed by the people who have enough money in their pockets. In the United States, where money governs politics, political participation and discussions can never be actualized without the help of money. Money politics has ruthlessly crushed “US-style democracy”.
