美国必须改革竞选的“猎”钱大战

dorm99

2008年总统大选的筹款战以惊人的速度启动了。那么如何拉闸刹车呢？
      目前第一季度的筹款战已告一段落，筹资总额也令人瞠目，那么两党人马应该扪心自问：这场永不厌多的“猎”钱大战意义究竟何在？
      首先要问2008年的总统侯选人，他们应该思考的问题是：我们真的希望“猎”钱大战无休无止地继续下去吗？

      为了赢得初选的胜利，凡是有希望的侯选人都必须投入不可计量的精力用于募集资金。不过，假如两大党的被提名者同意放弃将私人资金用于大选，而利用政府选举基金为两党候选人提供的8500万美元的公共资金的话，这场疯狂的“猎”钱大战在决选中可能会被放弃。

      每个政党中主要侯选人之一——伊利诺伊州民主党参议员奥巴马和亚利桑那州共和党参议员麦恩，都同意如果他们的对手同意放弃使用私人资金他们就同意在大选中只使用政府选举基金。的限定框架内活动，共和党人罗姆尼和朱利安尼的竞选班子均表示他们的侯选人还没有就此做出决定。我们也没有从民主党人爱德华兹的竞选班子中得到回应。

      如果所有的侯选人都接受在参加大选时使用联邦政府的提供的选举基金，最大的受益人将是公众。自从水门事件后采用总统竞选筹资制度以来，每个侯选人都是这样做的。如此而来，侯选人可以从艰难的资金筹资活动中抽出身来而不会使自己处于严重的不利地位；况且，在当前的政治环境下，哪个大党的提名者可能募集更多资金还不得而知。如果总统候选人不用在募集人之间往返奔波，也不用忙于向主要捐助者感恩致谢，那么公众将会从中受益。

      其次要对这个破碎的选举流程提出质疑的是选民自己。如果可能的话，他们向那些还没有承诺使用公共选举资金的2008年总统侯选人发出的第一个质疑应该是：为什么不？另外，他们应该向那些表示信任公共资金制度的侯选人问一声：你们为什么不能尽力去保护公共选举基金制度还没有被粉碎的一部分？
   
     不过，一个更重要的问题是，有没有可能改变这个混乱的局面——不是在这次选举中改变，而是着眼于2012年的大选。这样的改革自然包括制度上的重大变革，包括修改目前规定的在初选阶段可用资金的额度，这一额度早已过时而不现实；其次还要增加公共基金在预选中的使用。非此，那些没有能力筹集到巨额资金的侯选人永远不可能有机会让人们听到他们的政见；候选人将愈发对有很好社会关系的捐助者感恩戴德；而对现金的这种追逐会使候选人没有时间去参加竞选活动。而这正是当前的制度，它既让候选人感到不快，也对民主的健康发展不利。

英文原文：

   
    The Money Chase


    Presidential fundraising for 2008 begins at a breathtaking pace. How to apply the brakes?
     
    Washington Post, Thursday, April 5, 2007; A16
     
    NOW THAT first-quarter presidential fundraising is done and the staggering totals have been tallied, two groups of people ought to be asking questions about the implications of this insatiable money chase.
     
    The first are the 2008 presidential candidates, and the question they should ponder is: Do we really want to keep doing this?
     
    Any credible candidate must devote an inordinate amount of effort to raising money to fuel a primary campaign. But there is some hope that this fundraising madness could be put aside for the general election portion of the campaign, if both major-party nominees agree to forswear private funds for the general election and make do with the $85 million in public money that would be available to each.
     
    One of the leading candidates in each party -- Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), whose request to the Federal Election Commission opened the door to this solution, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- has already agreed to accept the public financing and live within the general election limits if his opponent were to do the same. It's time for the other leading contenders to make clear their intentions. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has said only that she will "consider" taking the public financing. The campaigns of Republicans Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani say those candidates haven't yet decided; we didn't get a response from the campaign of Democrat John Edwards.
     
    It would be in the interests of the candidates and the public for all the candidates to agree to accept federal funds for the general election, as every candidate has done since the adoption of the post-Watergate presidential financing system. The candidates would spare themselves the slog of additional fundraising without putting themselves at a strategic disadvantage; in the current political climate, it's not clear which major-party nominee could rake in more. And the public would benefit from having general election candidates less preoccupied with racing from fundraiser to fundraiser, not to mention less beholden to big financiers.
     
    The others who should be asking questions about this broken process are voters themselves. Their first query should be addressed to the 2008 candidates who haven't yet pledged to take public funds if possible: Why not? In addition, they should ask of candidates who profess to believe in the public financing system: Why not do what you can to salvage at least part of it?

     
    But a more important question is whether it's possible to fix this mess -- not this time around but in time for 2012. That would require major changes in the system, including coming up with spending limits for the primaries that are more realistic than the current obsolete amounts and increasing the amount of public money available. The alternative is a system in which candidates without the ability to raise enormous sums never get a chance to have their messages heard; in which candidates are increasingly beholden to well-connected financiers; and in which the quest for cash crowds out campaigning. In short, it is the current system, unpleasant for candidates and unhealthy for democracy.