-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
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.
1 corporate | |
adj.共同的,全体的;公司的,企业的 | |
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 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 caucuses | |
n.(政党决定政策或推举竞选人的)核心成员( caucus的名词复数 );决策干部;决策委员会;秘密会议 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 anonymous | |
adj.无名的;匿名的;无特色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 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: |
|
|
7 mitt | |
n.棒球手套,拳击手套,无指手套;vt.铐住,握手 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 helping | |
n.食物的一份&adj.帮助人的,辅助的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 amendment | |
n.改正,修正,改善,修正案 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 boulder | |
n.巨砾;卵石,圆石 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 labor | |
n.劳动,努力,工作,劳工;分娩;vi.劳动,努力,苦干;vt.详细分析;麻烦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|