奧巴馬踏上危險道路

“Well then, if the president does it, it’s legal,” Richard Nixon once said. No one would accuse President Barack Obama of being Nixonian. Mr Obama tends to follow the law, would never approve of burgling the opposition and bears no vengeful traits. Yet he has done more than anyone to bury the campaign reforms that were brought in after Watergate. The latest step may be something Mr Obama will come to regret.

理查德•尼克松(Richard Nixon)曾言：“嗯，如果總統做了，那就是合法的。”沒有人會指責巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)總統是尼克松式的人物。奧巴馬傾向於依法辦事，不會批准竊聽對手，也沒有報復心理。然而他在埋葬水門事件(Watergate)後出臺的競選籌款改革方面比誰都積極。也許未來奧巴馬會爲最近的舉措懊悔。

Last week he spoke at a fundraising dinner in Washington. The low-key event was the founders’ summit of Organizing for Action – the 2012 Obama election campaign that has been reborn as the de facto fund-raising arm of the White House. The dinner, which included Eric Schmidt, chief executive of Google, did not appear on most of the evening news shows.

最近，奧巴馬在華盛頓舉行的一場籌款晚宴上發表了一番演說。這起低調的活動是“行動組織”(OFA)的創始人峯會。OFA曾負責2012年奧巴馬的總統競選活動，如今已經化身爲白宮事實上的籌款部門。晚宴的與會者包括谷歌(Google)董事長埃裏克•施密特(Eric Schmidt)，但多數夜間新聞節目都沒有報道這場宴會。

Yet it marks the moment that America’s permanent campaign was institutionalised. Tickets went for $50,000 a head. Those giving $500,000 or more will get to attend a quarterly meeting with Mr Obama. Not even George W. Bush was this audacious. To govern is to choose, went the saying. Now to campaign is to govern.

然而，這一刻標誌着，美國的“永久性競選”(permanent campaign)已經體制化了。晚宴門票每個人頭5萬美元。出價50萬美元以上的將有資格每季度與奧巴馬會見一次。即便是喬治•W•布什(George W. Bush)都沒這麼大膽。有句話說，治國就是選擇。現在呢，競選就是治國。

In Mr Obama’s defence, Democrats point out that he is doing far less than what corporate groups have done – and are planning to do – to defeat his agenda. Since the 2010 Citizens United ruling, in which the Supreme Court extended free speech rights to corporations by defining them as persons, liberals have worried about a tsunami of special interest money.

民主黨在爲奧巴馬辯護時指出，奧巴馬所做的，遠遠少於企業集團爲了挫敗他的議程而已經——以及正在計劃——做的。自2010年聯合公民(Citizens United)案判決（美國最高法院裁定企業具有人格，言論自由權利由此涵蓋企業）後，自由派人士就一直擔心出現特殊利益資金的“海嘯”。

So-called “super-pacs” are likely to spend millions in the coming months to defeat Mr Obama’s gun control proposals, any steps to curb global warming and even immigration reform (though most of America’s billionaires tend to be in favour of it). They will also hit the airwaves in opposition to any plan to close tax loopholes for the wealthy. It is only natural that Mr Obama would want to create a level playing field, say OFA’s apologists. In the real world, that takes money.

未來幾個月，所謂的“超級政治行動委員會”(super-pac)很可能花費數百萬美元來挫敗奧巴馬的槍支控制提案、遏制全球變暖的任何措施，甚至移民改革（儘管美國多數億萬富翁傾向於支持移民改革）。他們還會在媒體上大舉造勢，反對任何堵塞富人納稅漏洞的計劃。OFA辯護者稱，奧巴馬想要打造公平競爭的環境，這是再正常不過的了。在現實世界，這需要金錢。

Unlike Karl Rove, Mr Bush’s former electoral maestro, who runs Crossroads GPS, another “non-partisan” group, Mr Obama also promises a degree of transparency. Following an outcry by Washington’s bedraggled army of campaign finance reform groups, OFA now says it will disclose the names of anyone giving more than $250. It has also banned corporate donations. Moreover, there is scant prospect of an end to Mr Obama’s stand-off with Republicans before next year’s midterm elections. Mr Obama can give as many prime time speeches – and invite Republicans to as many dinners – as he likes. But the White House bully pulpit is not what it was. Putting pressure on lawmakers requires a far wieldier tool.

與卡爾•羅夫(Karl Rove)不同，奧巴馬也承諾一定程度的透明度；羅夫曾是布什的競選策略大師，經營着另一家“無黨派”組織Crossroads GPS。在華盛頓狼狽的競選籌款改革組織大軍發出強烈抗議後，OFA現在表示，它將披露所有捐款超過250美元人士的姓名。該組織還禁止了企業捐贈。此外，在明年中期選舉之前，奧巴馬與共和黨人結束對峙的前景渺茫。只要奧巴馬願意，他想發表多少場黃金時間演說都可以，想邀請共和黨人吃多少頓晚餐都可以。但白宮的天字第一號講壇已經今非昔比。向立法者施壓需要更加強大易用的工具。

All of which may look compelling at this point. But OFA’s defenders also underestimate its costs. The first is the lasting damage to Mr Obama’s credibility. The journey from idealist to insider is now complete. Mr Obama started out as an underdog in 2007 railing against the “cynics and special interests who have turned our government into a game”. Many succumbed to Obamamania because of his promise to tear up the Washington playbook.

眼前這一切看起來都令人信服。但OFA的捍衛者也低估了其代價。首先是奧巴馬的可信度受到永久損害。從理想主義者到圈內人的演變到此完成。2007年奧巴馬以弱勢者的身份向白宮進發，他指責“把我們的政府變成一場遊戲的裝腔作勢者和特殊利益”。很多人被“奧巴馬狂熱”吸引，因爲他承諾撕碎華盛頓的劇本。

The young senator pledged to forswear private money in the general election if his opponent did likewise. John McCain, the Republican nominee, accepted the offer. But by then conditions had changed. Mr Obama went on to outspend his opponent by more than two to one. Thus died the post-Nixon era of public financing. In spite of Mr Obama’s promise to replace it, the new has yet to be born.

這名年輕的參議員當時承諾，如果他的對手在總統大選中承諾放棄私人捐助，他也會照做。共和黨總統候選人約翰•麥凱恩(John McCain)接受了這一挑戰。但那時情況已經發生了變化。結果奧巴馬的支出比對手高出一倍多。就這樣，後尼克松時代的公共競選資金制度消亡了。儘管奧巴馬承諾要取代公共競選資金，但新安排尚未出臺。

Not even Mr Obama’s opponents expect him to use OFA as a crude “pay for play” in which donors win lucrative contracts – like Halliburton, the oil services group, did during the Bush years. But he is taking a big risk with appearances of conflict. Things will look worse if Mr Obama appoints Penny Pritzker, his former campaign finance chairwoman, as the next US commerce secretary – as is likely. Ms Pritzker is a billionaire whose immense Rolodex helped raise $750m for Mr Obama in 2008.

即便奧巴馬的競爭對手也未曾預期他竟然把OFA用作拙劣的“花錢買資格”工具，讓捐款人贏得利潤豐厚的合同——就像石油服務集團哈里伯頓(Halliburton)在布什主政期間所得到的待遇那樣。但是明顯的利益衝突給他帶來很大的風險。如果奧巴馬委任他的前競選籌款主席潘妮•普里茨克(Penny Pritzker)擔任下一任美國商務部長（可能性很大），事情看起來會更糟糕。普里茨克是位億萬富婆，她深廣的人脈在2008年幫助爲奧巴馬籌集了7.5億美元。

Second, Mr Obama now routinely deploys the kind of sophistry he built his brand on opposing. Headed by Jim Messina, who ran the 2012 campaign, it has been set up as a “social welfare” organisation that will be strictly “non-partisan” and unable to co-ordinate with the White House, say officials. In practice, it is registered as a charity to escape ceilings on individual campaign donations.

其次，奧巴馬現在常常使出詭辯招術，儘管他是靠反對此類詭辯打造自己的品牌的。官員稱，在2012競選團隊負責人吉姆•麥西納(Jim Messina)的帶領下，OFA被設爲“社會福利”組織，嚴格保持“無黨派”，不能與白宮配合。實際上，OFA註冊爲慈善機構是爲了避開對個人競選捐獻上限的限制。

If a hedge fund manager wanted to give $10m there would be nothing to stop it. “As I understand it, as I’ve read about it, it [OFA] will not take a position in elections,” Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, recently told reporters. Mr Carney could have checked with Michelle Obama, who made a video to accompany its launch in January. The group would be a way of “bringing ordinary people into politics”, she said.

如果一名對衝基金經理人想要捐贈1000萬美元，誰也不能阻止。白宮發言人傑伊•卡尼(Jay Carney)最近向記者表示：“按照我的理解，也正如我所讀到的材料一樣，OFA不會在選舉中採取立場。”卡尼本來可以與米歇爾•奧巴馬(Michelle Obama)對一對口徑。今年1月份米歇爾製作了一段配合OFA成立的視頻。她表示，該組織將成爲“普通人進入政界”的渠道。

But OFA’s biggest cost is still hidden. It sets a new threshold for elected US officials. If the president can raise unlimited private funds for his “social welfare” causes so can any governor or mayor, let alone the next president. Mr Obama’s ends may be laudable. It is hard to condemn any initiative that aims to counter the might of the gun lobby. However, the means are for keeps. Democrats will find it hard to complain when President Marco Rubio taps, say, defence industry money for his own charitable causes in 2016. “Yes he can,” will be the response.

但OFA最大的代價依然隱藏着。它爲當選的美國官員樹立了新門檻。如果總統可爲他的“社會福利”事業募集上不封頂的私人資金，那麼任何一位州長或者市長都可以這麼做，更不要說下一任總統了。奧巴馬的目的或許值得讚賞。人們很難譴責任何旨在反對槍支遊說力量的舉措。然而，這些手段是會一直存在下去的。假如下一任總統馬可•魯比奧(Marco Rubio)在2016年爲自己的慈善事業利用國防工業資金時，民主黨將難以抱怨。如果他們抱怨，迴應將是：“是的，他能用。”