VOA标准英语2012--US Court Ruling on Corporate Campaign Spending Draws Concern

（单词翻译）

US Court Ruling on Corporate¹ Campaign Spending Draws Concern

Two years ago this month [January 21], the U.S. Supreme² Court ruled that government may not limit spending by corporations on political campaigns. The majority in the narrow 5-4 decision, known as "Citizens United," said such limits would violate corporations' right to free speech - essentially³ treating corporate speech the same as that of individual human beings. There is growing concern that well-funded corporations may drown out the individual.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has the distinction of both supporting the "Citizens United" decision and being a victim of it.

Female Voice: “Ever notice how some people make a lot of mistakes?”

Newt Gingrich: “It was probably a mistake.”

This so-called "attack ad" was part of a multi-million-dollar negative campaign against Gingrich before the recent Iowa caucuses⁴. It was funded by anonymous⁵ corporate donors⁶ who favor Mitt⁷ Romney for president.

The corporate attack ads are widely credited with helping⁸ pull Gingrich down from front-runner to fourth in the recent Iowa Caucuses.

The New York City Council is the latest American city to adopt a resolution calling for an amendment⁹ to the U.S. Constitution - to declare that corporations are not entitled to the same rights as people, and that money is not a constitutionally-protected form of speech. Other cities to do so include Los Angeles, California; Albany, New York; Boulder¹⁰, Colorado and South Miami, Florida.

Jonah Minkoff-Zern represents Public Citizen, a non-profit organization that favors public campaign financing instead of allowing outside contributions.

“Our vote doesn’t matter the same way that someone who has so many resources to devote to a campaign, whether it’s a wealthy individual or a mega-corporation,” said Minkoff-Zern.

Republican Councilman Eric Ulrich, a Romney supporter, voted against the New York resolution.

“Because it’s just as important, even if you don’t agree with it, as the influence labor¹¹ organizations and other groups may have. You have to create an equal playing field and zeroing out one group simply because we don’t agree with them just to help another - that’s not fair, that’s not American,” said Ulrich.

Ulrich mentioned newspapers and religious groups as collective organizations that also can influence elections.

The Supreme Court decision was based on a case filed against a group called Citizens United, which used corporate funds to produce a film attacking 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.