美国高院裁决助长了“金钱”政治(2/2)
概述：美国最高法院的决定剔除了企业赞助选举支出的障碍，“金钱”政治愈演愈烈hints：
Mitt Romney
Super PAC
"Restore Our Future"
President Obama
Peter Fenn
Supreme Court
Roll Call
David Drucker
本文出现3处连字符
文中涉及到金钱数额时没有说dollar，但是书写时要在数字前加$
文中第35'处为一处采访者口误，不用写出。38'句首的they are同样为口误，不用写出。
翻译：凌辰凉凉
校对：丸子龙
组长：丸子龙
答疑：xyfxyfxyf123
注解：凌辰凉凉http://t1.g.hjfile.cn/listen/201205/20120527054353695768.mp3As of April this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign committee reported contributions topping $86 million. At the same time, a pro-Romney Super PAC called "Restore Our Future" reported bringing in nearly $52 million.
By comparison, President Obama's re-election campaign reportedly raised almost $200 million by that date.
Federal regulations say these PACs cannot coordinate their operations with candidates' campaigns. But one political consultant who works with Democrats, Peter Fenn, says the reality is different.
"Most of these so-called independent groups are not independent at all. They may not be working on direct orders from the candidate or the party, but they know what the issues are. They are part and parcel of the campaign."
While some decry the Supreme Court's decisions and the rise of these Super PACs, others say both parties, and these political committees, have equal opportunities to raise money. And, they say, voters won't be swayed by these outside groups.
Roll Call newspaper reporter David Drucker.
"End of the day, they're going to look at a political ad and they are primarily going to judge the ad by its contents, not by who is pushing it, or by the rules that created a playing field for the ad to exist in the first place."
Some observers say that by the November election, these outside PACs may well raise and spend more money than the candidates' own campaign committees.今年四月，共和党总统候选人米特·罗姆尼的竞选委员会报告称，已经筹募超过8600万美元。与此同时，支持罗姆尼的超级政治行动委员会“重建未来”报告称，他们已经筹资将近5200万美元。
据其报告，相比之下，截止当日，奥巴马阵营为竞选连任活动筹募2亿美元。
联邦法规表明，这些政治行动委员会不能将他们的筹资操作与竞选活动等同起来。但是有一位民主党政治顾问-彼得·费恩表明，现实情况与法规大相径庭。
“这些政治行动委员会大多数所谓‘独立运作’，但并非如此。他们可能并未按照候选人或是党派的直接命令做事，但他们确实清楚其中的利害关系。他们也是竞选活动不可或缺的一部分。”
尽管有些人谴责最高法院的决议，并反对这些超级政治行动委员会的兴起。但是其他人则认为，两党和这些政治委员会都享有同等的筹资权利。他们还认为，投票者并不会受这些外部团体的影响。
以下消息来自《点名报》记者大卫•德鲁克。
“当天末，他们准备看一则政治宣传片，但是他们会先看宣传片内容来评价，而非看到底由谁推动，也不是先看到底是何种规则为宣传片提供了场地。”
另外有些观察者称，截止11月份选举，这些外部政治行动委员会可能会比候选人自己的竞选委员会筹资更多，同时也花费更多。治行动委员会可能会比候选人自己的竞选委员会筹资更多，同时也花费更多。
页:
[1]