政治捐款不能決定選舉結果

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.

那麼，聯合王國的未來將歸結於哈利•波特(Harry Potter)對戰EuroMillions彩票遊戲嗎？9月18日，蘇格蘭將舉行獨立公投。《哈利波特》系列小說作者J•K•羅琳(J. K. Rowling)決定向Better Together運動捐款100萬英鎊，對於這個支持統一的團體而言，這是一個可喜的提振。在此之前，該團體一直很難與支持蘇格蘭獨立的Yes運動的財力媲美，後者獲得了在2011年贏得EuroMillions 1.61億英鎊大獎的克里斯•韋爾(Chris Weir)和考琳•韋爾(Colin Weir)夫婦350萬英鎊的捐款。韋爾夫婦的捐款佔到了Yes運動已收到捐款的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.

聯合王國的存亡可能取決於兩位彩票中獎者的政治傾向，這一想法令人不安。蘇格蘭公投並非一個孤立的例子。舉目當今世界，從美國到亞洲，選舉和政治競選活動都受到富人鉅額捐款的影響。

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.

這些政治願望背後的資金流動可能很複雜。在最近入住謝爾登•埃德森(Sheldon Adelson)擁有的新加坡賭場酒店——濱海灣金沙大酒店(Marina Bay Sands)期間，我突然想到：我正在目睹中國賭客讓一位80多歲的美國億萬富翁變得更富，這位富翁進而會用這筆錢資助那些支持以色列的共和黨政治候選人。全球多數地區似乎都會以某種方式受到新加坡老虎機的影響。

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，但不是特別有效。據《華盛頓郵報》(Washington Post)稱，在上次美國總統大選中，他曾捐款逾9000萬美元，但他支持的候選人最終都落敗。這一次，他準備更爲謹慎地下注，《華盛頓郵報》援引他的一名助手的話稱，他正物色一位“有信念但並不完全瘋狂”的共和黨候選人——鑑於共和黨的現狀，這項任務實際上比聽上去更爲困難。

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.

其他億萬富翁的政治支出似乎更爲幸運。儘管外界並不知曉安巴尼(Ambani)家族向印度總理納倫德拉•莫迪(Narendra Modi)的競選具體投入了多少資金，但人們普遍認爲，莫迪及其領導的印度人民黨(BJP)在最近大選中的支出遠遠超出國大黨(Congress party)。實業家安巴尼兄弟是印度人民黨的慷慨捐款者，反過來也受益於莫迪當選後出現的股市漲勢。

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.

對於政治人士而言，尋求富人的支持既是必要的，也是危險的。託尼•布萊爾(Tony Blair)和工黨(Labour party)不得不向一級方程式(F1)老闆伯尼•埃克爾斯通(Bernie Ecclestone)歸還100萬英鎊，因爲有人稱，埃克爾斯通影響了英國政府有關香菸廣告的政策。尼古拉斯•薩科齊(Nicolas Sarkozy)與年事已高的女繼承人利利亞娜•貝當古(Liliane Bettencourt)之間的金錢關係引發了一樁刑事調查，儘管這位法國前總統最終被證明是清白的。

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.

我們很少發現人們會對億萬富翁資助的政治持完全一致的態度。由於他選擇支持的事業，對於美國右翼人士而言，融資家喬治•索羅斯(George Soros)是一個令人憎恨的人物，而對於自由派而言，他卻是一個英雄。保守的實業家科赫兄弟(Koch)則引發相反的反應。

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.

一旦他們平靜下來，各方或許都會認爲，不讓政治制度受到億萬富翁（或者，在蘇格蘭的例子裏只是百萬富翁們）願望的嚴重影響將是更好的結果。但說起來容易做起來難。在幌子組織和媒體分化的時代，限制競選捐款或支出遠非直截了當。在美國，政府試圖對個人向單一競選活動的捐款數額設置法定上限。但這不可能阻止富人向多個目標相似的不同政治組織（例如幾個政治行動委員會，由其進而支持個別候選人）捐款。美國最高法院裁定，政治支出是一種言論自由的形式，這使得對個人捐款封頂被界定爲非法，並導致社會幾乎不可能迫使億萬富翁收斂言論和支出。

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.

英國曾經爲控制競選支出而自我慶幸，禁止政黨在電視上做廣告。但在社交媒體時代，這一措施看上去越來越無足輕重了。

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.

富豪爲政治捐款很可能無法阻止。因此，或許令我們稍感安慰的是，儘管金錢肯定有利於競選，但並不能確保成功。如果埃德森的數十億美元捐款真的能夠買下美國總統職位的話，紐特•金裏奇(Newt Gingrich)早就入主白宮了。埃德森的詛咒現在擊中了即將卸任的衆議院共和黨領袖埃裏克•坎特(Eric Cantor)，坎特是埃德森中意的政治人士，他剛剛在中期選舉的共和黨初選中，把自己的國會議員席位輸給一位競選資金遠遠遜於他的挑戰型候選人。

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.

類似地，儘管“哈利•波特”的幫助肯定會受到蘇格蘭獨立公投No運動的熱烈歡迎，但民調顯示，在這位魔法師到來之前，儘管EuroMillions獲獎者向Yes行動投入了巨資，但Better Together仍遙遙領先。或許，選民實際上有自己的想法？這肯定會讓聯合王國的未來不那麼像是一場彩票遊戲。