3. The institutionalized system of US money politics has come into being.

三、美国金钱政治的制度化形式

In the late 19th century, US money politics developed into a "pork-barreling" political system. The political party that wins the competition usually gives official positions to those who have contributed to the election campaign, mainly the backbone of the political party and the funders who provide campaign funds for the party. "Pork barreling" has led to the spread of corruption in the political sector and among the officials, and it has also decreased the administrative efficiency. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the United States has tried to impose some restrictions on political contributions, but it has never changed the very nature of US democracy, which is money politics. The adjustments to the systems always leave loopholes and backdoors for money politics, and actually give money politics a legal status.

19世纪后期，美国的金钱政治发展成为“政治分肥”制度。竞争获胜的政党通常将官位分配给为选举做出贡献的人，主要是本党主要骨干和提供竞选经费的金主。“政治分肥”造成政治腐败蔓延，官员贪污舞弊，行政效率低下。自20世纪初开始，美国试图对政治捐献做出一些限制，但没有改变美国民主制度的金钱政治本质。制度调整永远为金钱政治留下漏洞和后门，实际使金钱政治取得合法地位。

First, the "super-fundraiser" system can legally avoid donation limits. A "super fundraiser" is someone who has a lot of wealth and social connections, such as corporate executives, hedge fund managers, showbiz stars, or lobbyists. They have many connections and resources, and are able to use their personal networks to bring together a large number of small donors to raise a lot of funds for a candidate within a short period of time. For instance, in the 2016 US presidential election, 1,000 "super fundraisers" helped the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, to collect one-third of the personal donations for her campaign. Under the "super-fundraiser" system, a big personal donation that surpasses the limit can be divided into smaller parts that are under the limit and put under other persons’ names. That is how big donations become legalized. A candidate who receives these kinds of donations is clear about who provided him or her with such big donations. This makes it easy for the affluent people and large enterprises to trade money for political influence.

第一，“超级筹款人”制度合法规避捐款限额。“超级筹款人”是拥有大量财富和社会关系的人，比如企业高管、对冲基金管理人、演艺界明星或说客。他们人脉多，神通广大，能利用个人关系网把大量小额捐款人凑在一起，为候选人短时间内筹集大量资金。在2016年美国总统选举中，民主党候选人希拉里·克林顿个人筹款金额中的三分之一是由1000个“超级筹款人”帮助完成的。同时，“超级筹款人”制度还能绕过法律有关捐款限额的规定，将总额超限的捐款划到许多人头下面，使其符合个人捐款上限，最后才捆绑在一起捐给某位候选人。接受捆绑捐款的候选人，自然知道谁是真正的金主。这使得富豪和大企业能轻易地用金钱换取政治影响力。

Second, the SCOTUS has ruled to lift restrictions on "soft money". The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 restricted "soft money" donated to political parties to support specific candidates, namely the donations that were not restricted by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) but used to influence federal elections. Nevertheless, this Act has been challenged constantly. In 2007, the SCOTUS ruled in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., that the provisions of the BCRA, which restrict corporations, unions, and trade groups from funding certain advertising by political parties, violate the First Amendment’s provisions on the freedom of speech. In 2010, the SCOTUS ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that provisions of the BCRA, which restrict corporations and unions from funding federal election candidates for or not for profit during the final stage of the campaign, violate the principle of freedom of expression in the US Constitution. This ruling completely vetoed the contents of the BCRA, allowing "soft money" to legally enter elections on a large scale and letting money to wantonly rush into the political sector. In 2014, the SCOTUS’ ruling in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission significantly relaxed restrictions on political contributions. It removed limits on the total amount of contributions made by an individual to federal candidates and political party committees while retaining the $2,600 limit on an individual’s donation to a candidate. This means that the wealthy people can donate to many federal candidates at the same time, and they can donate unlimitedly to the political party they support.

第二，联邦最高法院裁决取消对“软钱”的限制。2002年的《两党竞选改革法》限制了那些通过捐给政党来支持特定候选人的“软钱”，即不受《联邦竞选法》限制但又用于影响联邦选举的资金。但是，这个法律受到持续挑战。2007年，联邦最高法院对“威斯康星州‘生命权利’组织诉联邦选举委员会案”做出裁决，认定《两党竞选改革法》有关限制企业、工会和贸易团体资助特定选举广告的条款违反了宪法第一修正案关于言论自由的规定。2010年，联邦最高法院在“联合公民诉联邦选举委员会案”的裁决中，认定《两党竞选改革法》关于竞选最后阶段限制公司、工会以营利或非营利的目的资助联邦选举候选人的相关规定违反宪法中的言论自由原则。这一裁决将《两党竞选改革法》的内容否决殆尽，使得“软钱”可以合法地大规模进入选举活动，打开了金钱肆意流入政治的闸门。2014年，联邦最高法院在“麦卡沃恩诉联邦选举委员会案”的裁决中大幅放宽了对政治捐款的限制，在保留个人对单个候选人捐助上限为2600美元的情况下，取消个人对全体联邦候选人及政党委员会的捐款总额限制。这意味着，富人可以同时捐助很多联邦候选人，更可以无限制地向自己支持的政党捐款。

Third, super political action committees (PACs) are the most important manifestation of money politics. In addition to making political contributions directly to candidates and political parties, the wealthy class and corporations of the United States can also make political donations through super PACs. PACs came into being in the 1930s. A PAC is a political committee consisting of corporations and independent political groups, and it is organized for the purpose of raising political donations and circumventing limits on personal and corporate donations, which are imposed by relevant regulations of US laws. A PAC collects money from many individuals and then decides on the candidates it donates to. As it is closely related to certain large corporations and specific interest groups, a PAC often launches publicity campaigns to support or oppose a certain candidate and participates in elections on behalf of these corporations and interest groups. After the release of the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971, PACs entered a period of vigorous development due to fewer restrictions. A large amount of money from corporations, individuals, and interest groups participates in the elections through the channels offered by PACs. In 2010, a ruling of the SCOTUS removed the limit on corporate and individual contributions to independent PACs. Because of this, PACs have entered their heyday, and a large number of super PACs came into being. According to data from the Political Responsibility Center, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization, as of August 8, 2016, there were 2,316 super PACs registered in the United States. Super PACs have strong fundraising capacity and exert influence on every aspect of an election. Corporations and wealthy people can inject their funds into super PACs without restrictions to indirectly affect an election. In the 2016 presidential election, the super PAC that received the most donations, which amounted to as much as $176 million, was Priorities USA Action, which was in support of the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Soros, the super-rich US investor, donated $6 million to Priorities USA Action, and Thomas Steyer, a hedge fund manager, contributed $57 million to another super PAC in support of Hillary Clinton.

第三，超级政治行动委员会是金钱政治最重要的表现形式。除了直接向候选人和政党提供政治捐款外，美国富人和企业还可以通过超级政治行动委员会来进行政治捐赠。政治行动委员会产生于20世纪30年代，是一种由企业或独立政治团体组成的政治筹款机构，主要是为了规避美国法律对个人和机构政治捐款的限制。它们从许多个人手中收集金钱，然后决定为哪些候选人捐款。政治行动委员会与大公司和特定利益集团关系密切，代表它们进行造势宣传，支持或反对某位候选人，实际上是大公司和利益集团参与选举的“白手套”。1971年《联邦选举法》通过后，政治行动委员会由于限制较少而进入大发展时期。大量企业、个人和利益集团的金钱通过政治行动委员会管道参与竞选。2010年联邦最高法院的裁决取消了企业与个人向独立支出的政治行动委员会的捐款上限。由此，政治行动委员会进入鼎盛时期，大量超级政治行动委员会应运而生。根据无党派非营利研究机构“政治责任中心”的数据，截至2016年8月8日，美国登记注册的超级政治行动委员会有2316个。超级政治行动委员会有强大的募款实力，在各个方面对选举产生影响，尤其是企业和富豪可以将自己手中的资金无限制地投入超级政治行动委员会，从而间接影响选举。在2016年总统选举中，获得捐款最多的超级政治行动委员会是支持民主党候选人希拉里·克林顿的“美国优先行动”，达到1.76亿美元。富豪索罗斯向“美国优先行动”捐款600万美元，而对冲基金管理人托马斯·斯泰尔更向支持希拉里的超级政治行动委员会提供5700万美元捐款。