Sorry, that's against the rules.

對不起，這違反規定。

So let's break the rules.

那就讓我們打破常規吧。

And if we're gonna break the rules, you need to know them.

如果我們要破壞規則，你就得知道這些。

Bribery of a politician is illegal, or at least our legal system thinks it should be.

賄賂政客是違法的，至少我們的法律制度認為是違法的。

There's three major court decisions that built up to the loophole we're going to use because a mistake was made along the way that legalized the bribery of any US politician.

有三項重要的法院判決，才有了我們現在要利用的漏洞，因為一路走來，我們犯了一個錯誤，使賄賂任何美國政客合法化。

Now, in a perfect, crime-ridden world, we could just give money directly to politicians in exchange for something.

在一個犯罪猖獗的完美世界裡，我們可以直接把錢交給政客，以換取一些東西。

Quid pro quo.

交換條件。

But our first court decision in 1976 prevents that.

但我們在 1976 年的第一項法院判決阻止了這件事發生。

Buckley v. Valeo.

巴克利訴瓦萊奧案。

The Supreme Court rules that it is constitutional to limit donations to political campaigns.

最高法院裁定，限制對政治活動的捐款是符合憲法的。

Because if you can't give $100,000 to a candidate, and you're limited to something like $3000 that makes it very unlikely the candidate will do something for you.

因為如果你無法給候選人 10 萬美元，而你的預算僅限於 3000 美元，那麼候選人就不太可能為你做點什麼。

We've got senators accepting gold bars out here.

參議員接受金條。

Good luck bribing someone for $3000.

祝你好運用 3000 美元賄賂一個人。

The limit also applies to political action committees, PACs, which take donations, then give the money to candidates.

這項限制也適用於政治行動委員會（PAC），它們接受捐款，然後將錢捐給候選人。

You as of right now can only donate $5000 to a PAC per election cycle.

從現在開始，你在每個選舉週期只能向一個政治行動委員會捐贈 5000 美元。

But you're a millionaire, and you're looking to bribe someone.

但你是百萬富翁，你想賄賂某人。

So $5K's just not going to cut it.

5K 是不夠的。

2010.

2010 年。

Citizens United v. FEC.

聯合公民訴聯邦選舉委員會案。

The Supreme Court rules that as long as a corporation doesn't coordinate with candidates, there's no possibility of them corrupting candidates.

最高法院裁定，只要公司不與候選人協調，他們就不可能賄賂候選人。

That limiting the spending of a corporation to advocate for or against any political candidate is an infringement on free speech.

限制公司支持或反對任何政治候選人的支出是對言論自由的侵犯。

The free speech of the corporation, of course.

當然，公司的言論自由。

This overruled the 1990 Supreme Court decision that said it was constitutional to limit corporations spending on elections.

這推翻了 1990 年最高法院的裁決，該裁決稱限制公司選舉支出符合憲法。

Because if corporations could spend as much as they want to promote candidates, it would distort the political process.

因為如果企業願意花多少錢來提拔候選人，就會扭曲政治進程。

That's what the old one said.

以前是這樣說的。

Thank God we fixed that, right?

感謝上帝，我們解決了這個問題，對吧？

So now, corporations can spend as much as they like to help out a politician's campaign as long as they're "not coordinating."

所以現在，只要企業「不協調」，他們就可以花不管多少錢來幫助政客的競選活動。

But you want to bribe a politician, and you still can't donate any more than $5000 to a PAC.

但你想賄賂政客，但你仍然不能向 PAC 捐贈超過 5000 美元。

Those limits are still there.

這些限制仍然存在。

So we need our third court case.

所以我們需要第三個法庭案例。

Speechnow.org v. FEC; also in 2010.

Speechnow.org 訴聯邦選舉委員會案。也在 2010 年。

Almost immediately after Citizens United.

幾乎在《聯合公民》之後立即就出現了。

With Citizens United ruling that independent expenditures by corporations have no risk of corrupting an election, then neither do donations to those corporations.

《聯合公民案》裁定，企業的獨立支出不會對選舉造成腐敗風險，因此對這些企業的捐款也同樣不會有這樣的風險。

That's the logic.

邏輯就是這樣。

This is where the mistake was made.

錯誤就出在這裡。

And if your donation has no risk of corruption, no risk of quid pro quo, then Buckley doesn't apply anymore.

如果你的捐款不具有腐敗風險，也不涉及交換條件，那麼《巴克利判決》就不再適用。

It's unconstitutional to stop you from donating as much money as you want to a corporation.

阻止你為公司捐多少錢都是違憲的。

And it's unconstitutional to stop a corporation from spending that money on their own.

並且阻止企業將這筆資金用於自身支出是違憲的。

Important note:

重要事項：

This wasn't a Supreme Court ruling. It never reached the Supreme Court because the attorney general didn't think it would be important.

這並非最高法院的裁決。它從未達到最高法院，因為檢察總長認為這不重要。

So, if you set up a political action committee, but it doesn't coordinate with any campaign, any candidate, people can donate as much as they want.

因此，如果你建立一個政治行動委員會，但它不與任何競選活動或候選人協調，人們可以捐贈任意金額。

Those PACs are called Super PACs.

這些政治行動委員會被稱為超級政治行動委員會（Super PACs）。

Try to pause here and figure out how you'd bribe a politician with these tools. Because now it's easy.

請試著在這裡停下來思考，看看如何使用這些工具來賄賂政治家。因為現在變得很容易。

All you need to do is promise that politician you'll donate $100,000. Maybe a million. Just not to them.

你只需要向那個政客承諾，你會捐出十萬美元，甚至一百萬美元，但不是捐給他們，

You'll donate it to the Super PAC that's running ads to advocate for them.

你可以將資金捐贈給支持他們的超級政治行動委員會，該委員會正在運作宣傳廣告。

All they have to do in exchange is give you a favor once they're elected. You know, something for something.

交換的條件是一旦他們當選，就給予你一個恩惠。你知道的，一個交換的原則。

And because the courts have declared that this could never, ever, possibly cause corruption, you're in the clear.

由於法院宣稱這絕對不可能引起腐敗，你就無懼無懼了。

That is how our elections function and have been since 2010.

這就是我們的選舉運作的方式，自2010年以來一直如此。

Now to any normal person, that's a clear mistake .

對於任何普通人來說，這顯然是一個錯誤。

Because that's corruption. What we've been doing is corruption.

因為那就是腐敗。我們一直在做的就是腐敗。

It's bribery.

這是賄賂。

It's what the law intends to prevent.

這正是法律所要防止的。

There's no functional difference if the money you donate is going to a PAC or to the campaign as long as it helps the candidate.

只要你的捐款有助於候選人，無論是捐給政治行動委員會還是競選活動，實際上沒有功能上的區別。

You can use that to influence them.

你可以利用這一點來影響他們。

"Quid pro quo."

「交換條件」。

It's a clear oversight.

這顯然是一個疏忽。

This is why and most of the spending on modern campaigns doesn't come from the campaigns anymore.

這就是為什麼現代競選活動的大部分開支不再來自競選團隊。

It comes from Super PACs. SperPACS funded by the rich to buy politicians.

這來自超級政治行動委員會，由富人資助以收買政客。

The solution is putting those donation limits back. And they can be, once the Supreme Court overrules the court that declared these limits unconstitutional.

解決的辦法就是恢復這些捐款限制，一旦最高法院推翻了宣佈這些限制違憲的法院，就可以恢復這些限制。

But until that mistake is fixed, this is your up to date guide on how to bribe a politician.

但在這個錯誤被修正之前，以上就是該如何賄賂政客的最新指南。