官方APP下载:英语全能特训(微信小程序版,支持苹果手机、安卓手机)
创办于2003年
UNSV记不住?那就记中文谐音“忧安思危”吧!
  Slow and Steady Wins the Race!
UNSV英语学习频道 - Slow and steady wins the race!
公众微信服务号
英语全能特训(微信公众服务号)
UNSV英语学习频道淘宝网店
客服短信:18913948480
客服邮箱:web@unsv.com
初级VIP会员
全站英语学习资料下载。
¥98元/12个月

ECONOMICS REPORT - What 'Citizens United' Does for US Companies, Unions

阅读次数:


VIP会员专享下载:(非VIP会员无权下载!如果想下载,但还不是VIP会员,请点此订购
下载方式:使用鼠标右键(注意是鼠标右键!)点击下面的MP3音频/MP4视频链接,然后选择“另存为…”。
英汉翻译对照 英汉翻译对照  MP3节目录音 MP3节目录音  PDF节目文稿 PDF节目文稿  MP3同步字幕 MP3同步字幕  词汇句型精讲 词汇句型精讲 
文章正文
同步字幕
A drawing of the lawyer representing Citizens United, Theodore Olson, arguing the campaign finance case before the Supreme Court in September.
A drawing of the lawyer representing Citizens United, Theodore Olson, arguing the campaign finance case before the Supreme Court in September.

This is the VOA Special English Economics Report.

Laws in the United States and other countries treat a corporation like a person. We talked last week about how this idea developed a long time ago.

In the United States, the Constitution protects freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has recognized that this is also true for corporations. But there was still a question about whether corporations could have the same freedom of political speech as real people do.

During the two thousand eight presidential campaign, a nonprofit corporation released a film critical of Hillary Clinton. The group, Citizens United, wanted to make "Hillary: The Movie" available on cable TV. But it did not want to violate a limit on so-called electioneering communication by corporations and unions within thirty days of a primary election.

Citizens United took the Federal Election Commission to court to fight the law.

In January of this year, the Supreme Court, by the narrowest majority, voted five to four to end the ban. The ruling clears the way for corporations and unions to use their own money to support the election or defeat of a candidate. However, they are still barred from directly giving money to candidates. And the court did not consider the question of existing laws designed to prevent foreign influence in the political process.

Since the nineteen forties, the traditional place for political speech by American unions and companies has been through political action committees. William Van Alstyne is a professor at the William and Mary Law School in Virginia.

WILLIAM VAN ALSTYNE: "If the shareholder felt it to their interest, if they wanted to contribute to a political action committee representing the business interest of the company, then they would contribute to the political action committee. Same thing on the labor side. So members of the union might be encouraged to contribute to the PAC -- it's called a P.A.C. The PAC would then determine how best to use the money, politically speaking, in campaigns for and against candidates, ballot issues and all the rest."

Now, says Professor Van Alstyne, the decision in Citizens United raises new issues. For example, the court will have to rule on whether companies with majority foreign ownership can enjoy the same expanded rights of political speech.

President Obama denounced the ruling in his State of the Union speech to Congress in January. This week, Chief Justice John Roberts told law students that "anybody can criticize the Supreme Court." But, in answer to a question, he said the setting was "very troubling." Six of the nine justices, including the chief justice, were sitting right in front of the president.

And that's the VOA Special English Economics Report, written by Mario Ritter. You can find last week's report on corporations at www.unsv.com. I'm Steve Ember.

网友的学习评论(0条):
版权所有©2003-2019 南京通享科技有限公司,保留所有权利。未经书面许可,严禁转载本站内容,违者追究法律责任。 互联网经营ICP证:苏B2-20120186
网站备案:苏ICP备05000269号-1中国工业和信息化部网站备案查询
广播台