-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Candidates and political action committees spent nearly $17 billion on midterms
NPR's Steve Inskeep talks to Ciara Torres-Spelliscy of the Brennan Center, about how campaign spending trends shaped the midterm elections, and how they could affect future elections.
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
The 2022 election is the most expensive midterm election yet. Candidates and political action committees spent nearly $17 billion on state and federal campaigns. That's according to data compiled by OpenSecrets, which is a nonpartisan research group that tracks money in politics. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy is a fellow at the Brennan Center and an expert in campaign finance and election law. Welcome to the program.
CIARA TORRES-SPELLISCY: Good morning.
INSKEEP: How is it that campaigns keep getting more expensive cycle after cycle?
TORRES-SPELLISCY: So I see the Supreme2 Court's fingerprints3 all over this election. The Supreme Court has been laying the groundwork for the past 46 years, starting with Buckley v. Valeo, which allowed rich individuals to spend all they wanted on elections. And then the court expanded that right to spend to corporations in Citizens United. And the result has been the federal election was $9 billion and the state elections were $7.8 billion. And both of those numbers are up from the last midterm.
INSKEEP: Can I just note, I think this is probably still less money that people spend on advertising4 for cars or video games or shoes or any number of things. Is it really that bad?
TORRES-SPELLISCY: I certainly think so. I think it distorts our politics, and it warps5 who can even be elected.
INSKEEP: What do you mean?
TORRES-SPELLISCY: So one of the things that happens is we put candidates through a money primary before they go through a real primary. And if a particular candidate can't fundraise, they are written off as being nonserious. But the ability to fundraise and the ability to govern are two different skill sets.
INSKEEP: Are there individual wealthy people who have raised their voices in a way that makes them far larger than a single vote?
TORRES-SPELLISCY: Indeed. So Citizens United and Buckley empowered large donors7 to spend lavishly8 in our elections. And just 10 wealthy individuals poured over half a billion dollars combined into this year's election, according to our good friends over at OpenSecrets. And in this election, there was a lot of money from crypto and the tech sector9. Sam Bankman-Fried spent 38 million. And Larry Ellison spent 31 million.
INSKEEP: Wow. I want to note something. You said that the Supreme Court has been chipping away at campaign finance restrictions10 for 46 years. I suppose we should note the context. After the Watergate scandals, there were a lot of questions about the way that political candidates were spending money. Congress stepped in, attempted to regulate this. They even said that presidential campaigns, general election campaigns, would be publicly financed. That is the structure that was set up - am I not mistaken? - that has been gradually eroding11 and is pretty much gone at this point. Is that right?
TORRES-SPELLISCY: That is correct. Buckley, which is sometimes misknown for the theory that money is speech, looked at that Watergate-era reform and sort of tore pieces out of it. And the Supreme Court has been dismantling12 campaign finance ever since.
INSKEEP: Is it at least some consolation13 that in some cases, although not all, we have some idea who is spending the money?
TORRES-SPELLISCY: So one of the problems that we have in campaign finance is the dark money problem. Dark money is money that is spent on a political campaign where voters can't tell who the original donor6 was. And in the 2020 election, there was $1 billion of dark money spent.
INSKEEP: Wow.
TORRES-SPELLISCY: In this election, it looks like it's lower, which is typical of a midterm, compared to a presidential election. But there has been at least $100 million of dark money in the 2022 election.
INSKEEP: If it's not disclosed, is it possible we don't even know about violations14 of the few laws that there are? For example, it might be foreign money. We wouldn't know.
TORRES-SPELLISCY: That is the big problem. If we don't know where money is coming from, it could be coming from an illegal source, including a foreign source, which is not allowed under our laws.
INSKEEP: Ciara Torres-Spelliscy of the Brennan Center. Thanks so much.
TORRES-SPELLISCY: Thank you.
1 transcript | |
n.抄本,誊本,副本,肄业证书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 fingerprints | |
n.指纹( fingerprint的名词复数 )v.指纹( fingerprint的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 advertising | |
n.广告业;广告活动 a.广告的;广告业务的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 warps | |
n.弯曲( warp的名词复数 );歪斜;经线;经纱v.弄弯,变歪( warp的第三人称单数 );使(行为等)不合情理,使乖戾, | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 donor | |
n.捐献者;赠送人;(组织、器官等的)供体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 donors | |
n.捐赠者( donor的名词复数 );献血者;捐血者;器官捐献者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 lavishly | |
adv.慷慨地,大方地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 sector | |
n.部门,部分;防御地段,防区;扇形 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 restrictions | |
约束( restriction的名词复数 ); 管制; 制约因素; 带限制性的条件(或规则) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 eroding | |
侵蚀,腐蚀( erode的现在分词 ); 逐渐毁坏,削弱,损害 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 dismantling | |
(枪支)分解 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 consolation | |
n.安慰,慰问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 violations | |
违反( violation的名词复数 ); 冒犯; 违反(行为、事例); 强奸 | |
参考例句: |
|
|