拒絕企業插手民主

　　As the political season heats up, Americans are already being inundated 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.


　　隨著政治熱季漸漸升溫，全美各地的人們已經淹沒于各類慣常的競選電話，郵件和廣告中。但今年夏天，人們也看到了一股由起著聽起來無惡意的名字的影子團體發布的攻擊性廣告的洪流。我們既不知道誰在背后運營這些廣告也不知道誰為它們出資付款。


　　The reason this is happening is because of a decision by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case – a decision that now allows big corporations to spend unlimited 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.”


　　導致這些的原因就是最高法院關于公民聯合案的裁決結果——該決定允許大的公司團體可以為了影響選舉結果而不受限制進行資金投入。他們可以購買價值數百萬美元的電視廣告——更糟糕的是，他們甚至根本就不用透露誰最終為這些廣告付錢。即使是外資控制的公司，你們也不會知道。即使是BP，你們也不會知道。即使是大保險公司或華爾街銀行你們亦不會知道。這樣的團體可以藏在像“美好未來公民聯合”的虛假名字后面，即使更確切的名字可能是“更松散監管促進公司”。


　　We tried to fix this last month. There was a proposal supported by Democrats 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.


　　我們上月嘗試糾正這個問題。提出了一項民主黨和共和黨共同支持的提案，要求發布政治性廣告的公司透露誰為他們的活動提供資金。當特殊利益團體發布廣播電視廣告時，無論是誰運營廣告或為廣告出資，都需要在廣告中表明身份并為其負責——如同一個公司的CEO或一個組織的最大捐助人一樣。而且外資控制的公司和團體出資影響美國選舉的行為將受到限制——如同以往一樣。


　　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 issue.


　　你可能認為做出這樣的改革是個常識性的問題。你可能會認為降低公司甚至外資公司對我們選舉的影響是個黨派問題。


　　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.


　　但國會的共和黨領導人們不這樣認為。實際上，他們利用他們的權力阻止這項議題參與投票表決。


　　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.


　　這只能意味著對方的領導人希望讓公眾處在黑暗之中。他們不想讓你們知道哪個利益團體為這些廣告出資。正是這些不想透露真相的人才是有事情需要掩蓋的人。

　　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.


　　當然，我們絕不允許公司插手我們的民主。因此我們一直堅持不懈的為了改革和透明度而奮爭。而且我也號召大家一起參加戰斗。讓我們一起質問每一個從這些廣告受益的當選官員，要么為這種行為辯護，要么加入我們一起阻止它。


　　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. Their voices should be heard.


　　在美國遇到如此挑戰的時刻，我們不能承受這樣的政治游戲。無數美國人民正在掙扎度日，他們的聲音不應該淹沒于特殊利益團體暗中運行的數百萬美元的廣告之中。他們的聲音應該被大家聽到。


　　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 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.”


　　我們不要忘了一個世紀之前，正是共和黨總統——泰迪·羅斯福——他第一次就解決公司影響選舉的問題進行嘗試。他甚至稱這種行為是“我們政治事務中腐敗的主要來源之一”。并對公司影響選舉的行為進行了嚴厲的限制。他說：“每個利益團體都有權享有公正，但并不是每個都享有國會投票權，法庭申辯權和代表任何公職部門的權力。”


　　We now face a similar challenge, and a similar opportunity to prevent special interests from gaining even more clout 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.


　　現在我們面臨同樣的挑戰，同樣的機會來阻止特殊利益集團獲得在華盛頓更大的影響力。這不應該是民主黨或共和黨單方面的問題。這是一個我們能否擁有民主來為普通美國民眾服務的問題——一個代表人民，由人民選舉，為人民服務的政府。讓我們向居心不良的人和特殊利益集團展示我們的決心，我們依然可以說到做到。