政治捐款不能决定选举结果

So this is what the future of the United Kingdom comes down to? Harry Potter versus EuroMillions. On September 18, Scotland will vote on independence. The news that JK Rowling, author of the Harry Potter oeuvre, has decided to give £1m to the Better Together campaign is a welcome boost to the pro-union campaign. Until now, it has struggled to match the financial firepower of the pro-independence campaign, which has benefited from £3.5m donated by Chris and Colin Weir, a couple who won £161m playing the EuroMillions lottery in 2011. All told, the Weirs account for about 80 per cent of the funding received by the Yes campaign.

那么，联合王国的未来将归结于哈利•波特(Harry Potter)对战EuroMillions彩票游戏吗？9月18日，苏格兰将举行独立公投。《哈利波特》系列小说作者J•K•罗琳(J. K. Rowling)决定向Better Together运动捐款100万英镑，对于这个支持统一的团体而言，这是一个可喜的提振。在此之前，该团体一直很难与支持苏格兰独立的Yes运动的财力媲美，后者获得了在2011年赢得EuroMillions 1.61亿英镑大奖的克里斯•韦尔(Chris Weir)和考琳•韦尔(Colin Weir)夫妇350万英镑的捐款。韦尔夫妇的捐款占到了Yes运动已收到捐款的80%左右。

The idea that the UK’s survival might hinge on the political preferences of two lottery winners is unsettling. And the Scottish referendum is not an isolated example. Across the world, from the US to Asia, elections and political campaigns are shaped by massive donations by rich individuals.

联合王国的存亡可能取决于两位彩票中奖者的政治倾向，这一想法令人不安。苏格兰公投并非一个孤立的例子。举目当今世界，从美国到亚洲，选举和政治竞选活动都受到富人巨额捐款的影响。

The financial flows behind these political whims can be complicated. On a recent stay at the Marina Bay Sands hotel and casino in Singapore, which is owned by Sheldon Adelson, it struck me that I was watching Chinese gamblers enrich an octogenarian American billionaire, who would in turn use the money to fund Republican political candidates who support Israel. Most parts of the world seemed to be affected, one way or another, by the spinning fruit machines of Singapore.

这些政治愿望背后的资金流动可能很复杂。在最近入住谢尔登•埃德森(Sheldon Adelson)拥有的新加坡赌场酒店——滨海湾金沙大酒店(Marina Bay Sands)期间，我突然想到：我正在目睹中国赌客让一位80多岁的美国亿万富翁变得更富，这位富翁进而会用这笔钱资助那些支持以色列的共和党政治候选人。全球多数地区似乎都会以某种方式受到新加坡老虎机的影响。

Mr Adelson’s political donations have so far been lavish but not particularly effective. According to The Washington Post, he spent more than $90m backing losing candidates in the last US presidential election. This time round, he intends to place his bets more carefully and, according to an aide quoted in the Post, is looking for a Republican candidate “who has convictions but is not totally crazy” – a more difficult task than it sounds, given the state of the party.

迄今，埃德森的政治捐款一直很慷慨，但不是特别有效。据《华盛顿邮报》(Washington Post)称，在上次美国总统大选中，他曾捐款逾9000万美元，但他支持的候选人最终都落败。这一次，他准备更为谨慎地下注，《华盛顿邮报》援引他的一名助手的话称，他正物色一位“有信念但并不完全疯狂”的共和党候选人——鉴于共和党的现状，这项任务实际上比听上去更为困难。

Other billionaires have been more fortunate with their political spending. Although the precise amount of money that the Ambani family directed towards the campaign of Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, is not known, it is widely accepted that Mr Modi and his Bharatiya Janata party massively outspent the Congress party in the recent general election. The industrialist Ambani brothers were generous funders of the BJP and have, in turn, done well out of the stock market boom that followed Mr Modi’s victory.

其他亿万富翁的政治支出似乎更为幸运。尽管外界并不知晓安巴尼(Ambani)家族向印度总理纳伦德拉•莫迪(Narendra Modi)的竞选具体投入了多少资金，但人们普遍认为，莫迪及其领导的印度人民党(BJP)在最近大选中的支出远远超出国大党(Congress party)。实业家安巴尼兄弟是印度人民党的慷慨捐款者，反过来也受益于莫迪当选后出现的股市涨势。

Courting the rich is both necessary and dangerous for politicians. Tony Blair and the Labour party had to return £1m to Bernie Ecclestone after suggestions were made that the Formula One boss had influenced government policy on cigarette advertising. The financial relationship between Nicolas Sarkozy and Liliane Bettencourt, an elderly heiress, provoked a criminal investigation – although the former French president was eventually cleared of wrongdoing.

对于政治人士而言，寻求富人的支持既是必要的，也是危险的。托尼•布莱尔(Tony Blair)和工党(Labour party)不得不向一级方程式(F1)老板伯尼•埃克尔斯通(Bernie Ecclestone)归还100万英镑，因为有人称，埃克尔斯通影响了英国政府有关香烟广告的政策。尼古拉斯•萨科齐(Nicolas Sarkozy)与年事已高的女继承人利利亚娜•贝当古(Liliane Bettencourt)之间的金钱关系引发了一桩刑事调查，尽管这位法国前总统最终被证明是清白的。

It is rare to find people who have a completely consistent attitude to billionaire-funded politics. George Soros, the financier, is a hate figure for the American right but a hero to liberals because of the causes he chooses to support. The Koch brothers, conservative industrialists, evoke similar reactions – but in reverse.

我们很少发现人们会对亿万富翁资助的政治持完全一致的态度。由于他选择支持的事业，对于美国右翼人士而言，融资家乔治•索罗斯(George Soros)是一个令人憎恨的人物，而对于自由派而言，他却是一个英雄。保守的实业家科赫兄弟(Koch)则引发相反的反应。

Once they calm down, all sides might agree that it would be better to have political systems not so much at the mercy of the whims of individual billionaires (or, in the case of Scotland, mere multimillionaires). But this is easier said than done. In an age of front organisations and fragmented media, capping campaign contributions or spending is far from straightforward. In the US, the government attempted to place legal limits on the amount an individual could give to a single campaign. But that could not prevent multiple contributions to various political organisations, with similar goals – such as the political action committees that then rallied behind individual candidates. The Supreme Court has ruled that political spending is a form of free speech – making caps on individual contributions illegal, and rendering it all but impossible to rein in free-speaking and free-spending billionaires.

一旦他们平静下来，各方或许都会认为，不让政治制度受到亿万富翁（或者，在苏格兰的例子里只是百万富翁们）愿望的严重影响将是更好的结果。但说起来容易做起来难。在幌子组织和媒体分化的时代，限制竞选捐款或支出远非直截了当。在美国，政府试图对个人向单一竞选活动的捐款数额设置法定上限。但这不可能阻止富人向多个目标相似的不同政治组织（例如几个政治行动委员会，由其进而支持个别候选人）捐款。美国最高法院裁定，政治支出是一种言论自由的形式，这使得对个人捐款封顶被界定为非法，并导致社会几乎不可能迫使亿万富翁收敛言论和支出。

The British used to congratulate themselves on controlling election campaign spending, banning television advertising by political parties. But, in the age of social media, that measure looks increasingly beside the point.

英国曾经为控制竞选支出而自我庆幸，禁止政党在电视上做广告。但在社交媒体时代，这一措施看上去越来越无足轻重了。

Plutocratic funding of politics probably cannot be stopped. So it might be some comfort to reflect that – although money undoubtedly helps campaigns – it is no assurance of success. If Mr Adelson’s billions really could buy the US presidency, Newt Gingrich would be sitting in the Oval Office. The curse of Sheldon has now struck Eric Cantor, the outgoing leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, and an Adelson favourite, who has just lost his congressional seat in a Republican primary to a much-worse funded, insurgent candidate.

富豪为政治捐款很可能无法阻止。因此，或许令我们稍感安慰的是，尽管金钱肯定有利于竞选，但并不能确保成功。如果埃德森的数十亿美元捐款真的能够买下美国总统职位的话，纽特•金里奇(Newt Gingrich)早就入主白宫了。埃德森的诅咒现在击中了即将卸任的众议院共和党领袖埃里克•坎特(Eric Cantor)，坎特是埃德森中意的政治人士，他刚刚在中期选举的共和党初选中，把自己的国会议员席位输给一位竞选资金远远逊于他的挑战型候选人。

Similarly, while help from Harry Potter will undoubtedly be hugely welcome to the No campaign in Scotland, the polls suggest that Better Together was still well ahead before the wizard struck, and despite the EuroMillions that have been poured into the Yes campaign. Maybe voters actually have minds of their own? That would certainly make the future of the UK seem like less of a lottery.

类似地，尽管“哈利•波特”的帮助肯定会受到苏格兰独立公投No运动的热烈欢迎，但民调显示，在这位魔法师到来之前，尽管EuroMillions获奖者向Yes行动投入了巨资，但Better Together仍遥遥领先。或许，选民实际上有自己的想法？这肯定会让联合王国的未来不那么像是一场彩票游戏。