| 二、政治權利無(wú)法得到應有保障 | II. Political Rights Not Safeguarded |
| 2015年，美國金錢(qián)政治和家族政治變本加厲，選民的真實(shí)意愿難以有效表達，政治生活中存在事實(shí)上的信仰歧視，公民知情權受到進(jìn)一步壓制。對此，美國前總統吉米·卡特發(fā)出“美國已經(jīng)不再是民主國家了”的感慨。(注15) | In 2015, money politics and clan politics went from bad to worse in the nation where voters found it hard to express their real volition and there was discrimination against belief in political life. In addition, citizens' right to information was further suppressed. Unsurprisingly, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said that "the U.S. is no longer a democracy" (www.huffingtonpost.com, August 3, 2015). |
| 金錢(qián)政治暴露民主虛偽性。美國法律對個(gè)人向總統候選人捐款數額作了限制，但對個(gè)人和企業(yè)向超級政治行動(dòng)委員會(huì )捐款沒(méi)有限制。《今日美國》2015年4月10日報道，至少有11個(gè)總統候選人聯(lián)盟成立了超級政治行動(dòng)委員會(huì )，借以籌集無(wú)限額捐款支持競選。(注16)總統候選人和超級政治行動(dòng)委員會(huì )僅用半年時(shí)間，就籌集到3.8億美元，其中60多筆100萬(wàn)美元以上的捐款占三分之一，一半捐款來(lái)自出資10萬(wàn)美元以上的捐款人，67位出資最多的捐款人捐款總額是50.8萬(wàn)名最小額捐助者的3倍還多。(注17)據美國財經(jīng)博客網(wǎng)披露，2007至2012年，在政治方面最為活躍的200家企業(yè)共耗費58億美元用于聯(lián)邦游說(shuō)和競選捐款，而它們則從聯(lián)邦政府項目和支持中獲得4.4萬(wàn)億美元的回報，占美國個(gè)人納稅者向聯(lián)邦政府所繳稅款的三分之二。這意味著(zhù)，企業(yè)為影響美國政治的花費可以獲取760倍的回報。(注18)美國前總統吉米·卡特就此指出，無(wú)限額的政治賄賂成為提名總統候選人或當選總統的主要影響因素，“美國的政治體系已被顛覆為向主要政治捐助者提供回報的工具”。(注19)美國總統2016年國情咨文也承認金錢(qián)對政治的影響很大，稱(chēng)“少數家族和幕后利益集團利用資金影響選舉”。 | Money politics revealed the hypocrisy in democracy. Although the laws of the United States put a lid on the size of individual donations to presidential candidates, there is no limit for such contributions to super PACs by individuals and corporations. The USA Today reported on April 10, 2015 that the allies of at least 11 White House hopefuls had launched committees to raise unlimited money to back their campaigns (www.usatoday.com, April 10, 2015). The presidential candidates and the super PACs raised about 380 million U.S. dollars in only half a year. More than 60 donations were worth more than 1 million U.S. dollars each, accounting for about one third of the total contributions. Half of the amount came from those who donated more than 100,000 U.S. dollars and the combined fund of the top 67 donors was more than three times that of 508,000 donors with least contributions (www.aol.com, August 1; www.politico.com, August 1). According to a report of the Zerohedge, between 2007 and 2012, 200 of America's most politically active corporations spent a combined 5.8 billion U.S. dollars on federal lobbying and campaign contributions. What they gave paled compared to what those same corporations got: 4.4 trillion U.S. dollars in federal business and support. Put that in context, the sum represented two thirds of what individual taxpayers paid into the federal treasury. For every dollar spent on influencing politics, the nation's most politically active corporations received 760 U.S. dollars from the government (www.zerohedge.com, March 16, 2015). Jimmy Carter said that with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president, the U.S. political system was subverted to be a payoff to major contributors (www.huffingtonpost.com, August 3, 2015). The role money played in politics was also indicated in the U.S. President's State of the Union Address for 2016, which said a handful of families and hidden interests were exercising influence on elections via their funds. |
| 家族政治左右美國選舉。在參加2016年美國總統選舉的候選人中，有多名參選人家族政治背景明顯。《紐約時(shí)報》通過(guò)大數據分析得出結論，“父輩優(yōu)勢”在政治領(lǐng)域明顯。美國總統的兒子成為總統的幾率比同齡人高140萬(wàn)倍，州長(cháng)的兒子成為州長(cháng)的概率比普通美國人高6000倍，參議員子承父業(yè)的機會(huì )比普通美國男性高出8500倍。(注20)據《華盛頓郵報》2015年1月16日報道，自從共和黨建立以來(lái)，其8.7%的國會(huì )議員與前國會(huì )議員是近親。該報道還指出，美國總統競選充滿(mǎn)貴族繼承制的氣息：有可能入圍候選人名單的是州長(cháng)和總統候選人的兒子，國會(huì )議員和總統候選人的兒子，總統的妻子和總統的兄弟，總統的兒子和參議員的孫子。(注21) | Clan politics was driving U.S. government elections. Among the candidates for the 2016 presidential election, more than one candidate was obviously related to clan politics. The New York Times concluded through big data analysis that advantages from father generation played a role in politics obviously. The chance for the son of a U.S. president to become president was 1.4 million times higher than his peers. Meanwhile the chance for a governor's son to be elected governor was 6,000 times higher than ordinary people. In addition, the chance for the son of a senator to be a senator like his father was also 8,500 times higher than ordinary U.S. men (www.nytimes.com, March 22, 2015). The Washington Post reported on January 16, 2015 that since the beginning of the Republic, 8.7 percent of its members of Congress were closely related to someone who had served in the body. The report continued to point out that a smell of heirship could be detected in the U.S. presidential election since the possible slate of candidates would include the son of a governor and presidential candidate, the son of a congressman and presidential candidate, the wife of a president and the brother of a president, son of a president and grandson of a senator (www.washingtonpost.com, January 16, 2015). |
| 信仰歧視使政治生活失去公平。在美國，不信仰上帝可能成為公職競選中的最大限制。不信仰基督教的人想贏(yíng)得競選是非常困難的，而不信仰任何宗教的人想贏(yíng)得競選則更加困難。據《華盛頓郵報》網(wǎng)站2015年9月22日報道，皮尤中心2014年5月的一次調查顯示，無(wú)神論被視為潛在總統候選人不合格的最重要因素，超過(guò)一半的人表示他們不太可能將選票投給一個(gè)不信仰上帝的人。同年7月的另一次調查顯示，在所有與宗教相關(guān)的群體中，無(wú)神論者和穆斯林被美國人予以最負面的評價(jià)。(注22) | Discrimination against beliefs led to unfairness in political life. Not believing in God could be the biggest disadvantage while running for a post in public office. It was difficult for those who were not Christians to win elections and for those who did not have a religious belief, the chance to win elections was slimmer. In a May 2014 Pew Research survey, atheism was the most disqualifying factor for a potential presidential candidate, according to a report posted on the website of The Washington Post on September 22, 2015. More than half of those surveyed said they would be less likely to vote for someone who did not believe in God. And another Pew poll in July 2014 found that of all religion-related groups, atheists and Muslims were viewed the most negatively by Americans (www.washingtonpost.com, September 22, 2015). |
| 公民選舉權受到進(jìn)一步限制。據《美國新聞與世界報道》網(wǎng)站2015年8月4日披露，2010年以來(lái)，已經(jīng)有21個(gè)州通過(guò)了新的法律來(lái)限制投票權的行使，一些州縮短了提前投票時(shí)間，其他的州則限制了證明合法選民身份的有效文件的數量。有14個(gè)州將在2016年的總統大選中首次實(shí)施限制投票權行使的新措施。公民選舉權成為兩黨惡性競爭的犧牲品，有民主黨參選人指責共和黨參選人“系統和故意地”阻止數以萬(wàn)計的美國人投票，以達到其競選獲勝的目的。(注23)《今日美國》網(wǎng)站2015年3月20日報道，美國2014年中期選舉的投票率為20世紀40年代以來(lái)的最低。全國的平均投票率為37%，最低為印第安納州，只有28.8%。(注24) | Citizens' electoral rights were further limited. According to an article on the website of the U.S. News and World Report on August 4, 2015, since 2010, a total of 21 states had adopted new laws to limit the exercise of suffrage. Some states shortened the time for early voting, while others limited the number of documents identifying one as a lawful voter. A total of 14 states will carry out fresh measures to limit the exercise of suffrage for the first time in 2016 presidential election. The voting rights were hit by the vicious competition between the two parties. One Democratic candidate accused GOP presidential candidates of having "systematically and deliberately" tried to keep millions of Americans from voting so as to win the election (www.usnews.com, August 4, 2015). A USA Today report, which was published on its website on March 20, 2015, said the nation had its lowest midterm-election voter turnout in 2014 since the early 1940s. The average turnout across the United States was 37 percent, with a low of 28.8 percent recorded in Indiana (http://www.usatoday.com, March 20, 2015). |
| 選民真實(shí)意愿難以得到有效表達。據《基督教科學(xué)箴言報》網(wǎng)站2015年12月13日分析，兩黨制迫使美國選民兩極分化，大多數選民并非真正支持所選擇的政黨，而是出于對另一政黨的擔心和恐懼作出無(wú)奈選擇。(注25)美國總統在2016年國情咨文中承認，現有劃分國會(huì )選區做法的結果是“政客選擇選民，而不是選民選擇政客”，“黨派間的積怨和猜疑未見(jiàn)減弱，反而變得更深”。 | It was difficult for voters to express their real will. The Christian Science Monitor carried a report on its website on December 13, 2015 that the two-party system forced the voters to take side. Most voters cast ballots for a party not because they supported the party but out of fear and worry over the other one (www.csmonitor.com, December 13, 2015). It was said in the U.S. President's State of the Union Address for 2016 that the practice of drawing congressional districts led to the situation where "politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around." It went on to say that "the rancor and suspicion between parties has gotten worse instead of better." |
| 公民知情權遭受政府打壓。據美聯(lián)社2015年3月13日報道，美國政府正在削弱有關(guān)保障公民獲得信息權利的法律，公民獲取政府信息的系統遭受?chē)乐仄茐模窠柚矙n案向政府官員問(wèn)責愈加困難。(注26)美國有線(xiàn)電視新聞網(wǎng)2015年2月13日報道，記者和新聞監管機構一直抨擊本屆美國政府為最不透明的政府之一。因對弗格森案的抗議，至少有15名新聞?dòng)浾弑徊丁?注27) | Citizens' right to information was hampered by the government. According to a report by the Associated Press on March 13, 2015, authorities were undermining the laws that were supposed to guarantee citizens' right to information and the systems created to give citizens information about their government. In addition, it was getting harder to use public records to hold government officials accountable (www.ap.org, March 13, 2015). An article on the website of the CNN reported on February 13, 2015 that journalists and news supervision authorities had continually slammed the current U.S. administration as one of the least transparent. At least 15 journalists were arrested in Ferguson protests (edition.cnn.com, February 13, 2015). |
|
(注15) 《赫芬頓郵報》網(wǎng)站（www.huffingtonpost.com），2015年8月3日。 (注16) 《今日美國》網(wǎng)站（www.usatoday.com），2015年4月10日。 (注17) 美國在線(xiàn)網(wǎng)站（www.aol.com），2015年8月1日；politico網(wǎng)站（www.politico.com），2015年8月1日。 (注18) 美國財經(jīng)博客網(wǎng)（www.zerohedge.com），2015年3月16日。 (注19) 《赫芬頓郵報》網(wǎng)站（www.huffingtonpost.com），2015年8月3日。 (注20) 《紐約時(shí)報》網(wǎng)站（www.nytimes.com），2015年3月22日。 (注21) 《華盛頓郵報》網(wǎng)站（www.washingtonpost.com），2015年1月16日。 (注22) 《華盛頓郵報》網(wǎng)站（www.washingtonpost.com），2015年9月22日。 (注23) 《美國新聞與世界報道》網(wǎng)站（www.usnews.com），2015年8月4日。 (注24) 《今日美國》網(wǎng)站（www.usatoday.com），2015年3月20日。 (注25) 《基督教科學(xué)箴言報》網(wǎng)站（www.csmonitor.com），2015年12月13日。 (注26) 美聯(lián)社網(wǎng)站（www.ap.org），2015年3月13日。 (注27) 美國有線(xiàn)電視新聞網(wǎng)網(wǎng)站（edition.cnn.com），2015年2月13日。 |
|
| 跳轉至目錄 >> | Back to Contents >> |