民主失竊的故事：字幕

【民主國家？】

Aren't you tired of this stuff? Why is it thatevery election season, it becomes impossible to hear the facts over all these misleading ads? And if it seems the problem is only getting worse, that's because it is.〔1〕 We can thank the Supreme Court for that.
你是否也受夠了這一切？為何每逢選舉季節，總有一堆似是而非的競選廣告，讓人分不清真相？這現象看似愈來愈糟，因為事實就是這樣，一切都拜最高法院所賜。
In 2010, they decided that it'd be just fine for corporations to spend as much money as they want telling us who to vote for.〔2〕
在2010年最高法院做出判決，企業可以隨意花錢做廣告向大眾推銷候選人。
Wait, why are corporations telling us who to vote for?
等等，為何企業要告訴我們該投誰？
Let's get something straight. This is a democracy, you know rule by the people?
簡單的說，民主不就是人民作主嗎？
I'm a person. You're a person. And Chevron? Not a person.
你是人民, 我是人民，而雪佛龍集團呢？並不是人民
So shouldn't elections be all about what people want? Good Jobs. Safe products. Healthcare. Responsible Government. Clean air and water.
選舉不就是選出民之所欲嗎？好工作、安全商品、醫療、盡責的政府、乾淨的空氣和水。
It turns out that the vast majority of Americans want to see a lot more done on all of these things.〔3〕
多數美國人都希望這些事項能做得更好，
But what people want will take a backseat as long as corporations can spend millions getting lawmakers elected.
然而只要企業能砸大錢讓特定議員當選，民之所欲就只能落入冷板凳。
Oil companies 〔4〕 have gotten politicians to block laws protecting our climate. Manufacturers have pushed through trade agreements that gut product safety and help ship jobs overseas〔5〕. Insurance companies have been the first ones consulted on health reform〔6〕 and giant corporations have gotten bail-outs and subsidies〔7〕.
石油公司勾結政客阻擋環保法規；製造商透過貿易協議鼓吹內臟食品安全，並促成工作機會遷往海外；保險公司曾是健保改革最早諮詢對象；大公司可以獲得紓困和補助。
Maybe that's why all kinds of people -Republicans, Democrats,independents -- are totally frustrated with our government. It's easy to get angry. But it's time we got smart and realized that the heart of our problem is not that we have bad lawmakers. We have a democracy in crisis.
也許這就是所有人，不論是共和黨、民主黨或獨立派人士都對政府失望的原因。生氣很容易，不過該是冷靜思考的時候了。其實，問題核心不是議員爛，而是我們的民主岌岌可危了。
85% of Americans feel that corporations have too much power in our democracy and people have too little〔8〕. 85 percent! Hey, that's a majority.
85% 美國人認為企業對於民主體制的影響力太大，而人民的影響力太小。85%！這可是絕大多數。
So let's get together and take our democracy back from corporations. It's the first and most important step in making real progress on all the issues people care most about.
所以我們一起努力，將民主從企業那裡搶回來吧！這是最迫切也最重要的步驟，完成這個步驟，才有辦法真正解決人民最關切的議題。

【現代企業的特徵】

So how did “we the people” lose control of our democracy to begin with? Let's go back a few centuries.
那麼，我們人民一開始是如何喪失對民主的控制權呢？這可要從幾個世紀前談起。
Then people invented something entirely new -- the corporation〔9〕. These legal entities exist independently of the people who own them. If a corporation does something that gets it into trouble, the owners can say, don't blame me, blame the corporation. I'm just a shareholder!〔10〕
當時大家都是人民，其中一些是僱主、一些是職員，不過，大家都還是人民。後來，人們發明一種全新的玩意兒「企業」，這些法人團體獨立於其擁有人，如果企業惹出麻煩，大老闆會說：「不能怪我，要怪公司，我只是股東。」
When the United States came into existence, corporations were easier to keep in check. Back then, the government would grant them charters for a specific short-term project, like building a bridge or a railroad.〔11〕
美國剛獨立時，企業還比較好控制，政府授予企業特許狀以進行某些短期計畫，譬如造橋或舖鐵路。
Once they fulfilled their purpose, they were disbanded. But over time, the law changed and corporations no longer had to be turned off once their project was complete. They began to live on indefinitely, with a much more general purpose, profit.〔12〕 And that's how the modern corporation was born.
一旦計畫完工，他們就被解散了，不過隨著時局演進，法律變了，後來計畫就算完工，企業也不用被解散，這些企業開始長久地存活下來，並抱持一個更普遍的目標：「利益」，這就是現代企業的由來。
Today's corporations have evolved to have something very dangerous in their programming. Unlike people, who are driven by all kinds of motivations -- doing the right thing, love for family, their country, the planet -- publicly traded corporations are now required, by law and the markets, to pursue one single motivation above all others. Maximize value for shareholders -- make as much money as possible.
今日的企業在設定上具有根本的危險性，人做事情會受到各種動機驅使，譬如做好事，愛家，愛國，愛地球，但是上市公司不論是依法或依市場需求，都必須追求單一至高無上的目標——也就是為股東追求最大的價值，盡可能賺更多錢。
That's it.
就是這樣。
No, really, that's what the law and the markets demand.
我是說真的，法律和市場就是這樣要求的。
Imagine a friend saying, “The only thing I really care about is money.” Not someone you'd want to leave your kids with, or your democracy for that matter.
若有個朋友說：「我唯一在乎的就是錢。」那你肯定不會想把小孩交給他，你也不會想把民主交給這種人。
Yes, it is people who run these corporations but their human motivations come second. If they prioritize anything at all over maximizing profits, they're outta there. Can corporate leaders do good things like give to charity or try to be more green? Sure. But not if it conflicts with maximum profits〔13〕.
沒錯，管理企業的都是人，不過他們的人性動機並不是最重要，如果他們將任何目標放在賺最多利潤之前，他們早就滾蛋了。企業老闆總可以做些好事吧？譬如捐錢給慈善機構，或努力更環保？當然，但前提是不能與賺最高利潤相衝突。
And since their humble beginnings, corporations have grown huge.
雖然企業的源起很卑微，現在卻已非同小可。
53 of the 100 biggest economies on earth are now corporations〔14〕.
全球前100大經濟體中，53個是企業。
So corporations have a single-minded profit motive. They're humongous. And their owners can easily dodge the blame for any harm they cause. That makes them tricky to share a country with. If we want them to serve us and not the other way around, they need some basic ground rules.
企業一心一意追求更多利潤，他們巨大無比，每當企業犯錯,大老闆可輕易規避任何責難，這造成企業取巧成性，難以共事一國，如果我們想要企業服務人民，而不是讓人民去伺候企業，就需要對這些企業制定一些基本規則。
And that's where the government comes in, setting rules to keep things fair and safe and to protect society from corporations run amok.
這就是政府該介入的時候，制訂法規、維持公平與安全、保護社會不受企業的殘害。
Now if their main objective is to maximize profit, do you think corporations are content to follow rules〔15〕 that keep them in check? No, of course not. They want to write those rules.
如果企業的主要目標是獲取最大利益，你認為他們會願意遵循法規、受政府監督嗎？不，當然不可能。企業想要主導立法。

【企業不是人】

But who is supposed to write the rules in a democracy? People.
然而在民主體制下，應該誰來立法？人民才對。
That's why one of the corporations' key strategies for sneaking into our democracy is saying they should have the same First Amendment rights as real, live people〔16〕. And that's exactly how they won that 2010 Supreme Court case known as Citizens United vs. FEC.〔17〕
這就是為何企業潛入民主體制的關鍵策略，就是主張企業和人民一樣，同樣享有自由言論保障權，藉由此主張，企業贏了2010年最高法院審理案，亦即「聯合公民訴聯邦選舉委員會案」。
In that case, five members of the Supreme Court decided that it's unconstitutional to put any limits on how much money corporations can spend influencing elections. Why? They said these limits violate the first amendment guaranteeing free speech.〔18〕
在該案中,最高法院的五個法官判決，限制企業花多少錢影響選舉，違反憲法規定。為什麼？他們說這些限制違反了自由言論保障權。
Obviously our founding fathers who wrote the first amendment were trying to protect the free speech of people.〔19〕 But this decision rides on the crazy argument that corporations should be treated the same as people and should get the same rights real people get!〔20〕
顯然，制定言論自由保障權的開國先民們，是想要保障人民的言論自由，但是該判決竟然認為企業和人民應一視同仁，企業享有人民擁有的權利！
This means corporations can spend as much as they want, whenever they want to intimidate or crush candidates running on a platform against their interests and support candidates who will do what they ask. Great news for corporations wanting to handpick the lawmakers whose job it is to keep them in check.
這表示,企業可以隨意砸大錢來影響選舉，他們可以威嚇或壓迫不利於他們的候選人，也可以支持會乖乖聽他們話的候選人，這對想挑議員來維持利益的企業而言，真是好消息呀！
Now, I'm all for free speech! If every shareholder and employee at Exxon wants to personally support some oil lobbyist running for senate, it's their right. There are millions more people who will support a different candidate. That's democracy in action!
我完全支持言論自由，如果艾克森美孚石油公司的股東或員工私下支持某個石油說客競選參議員，那是他們的權利，還會有好幾百萬人支持不同的候選人，這就是民主的進程。
But now Exxon or any other corporation can decide to spend unlimited dollars from its huge corporate coffers to influence an election, without even consulting its shareholders.
然而,現在艾克森美孚和其他大公司，可以從公司無上限撥款來影響選舉，甚至還不用事先知會股東。
This is a big deal. If the top 100 corporations decided to throw in just 1% of their profits, they could outspend every candidate for President, House and Senate combined!〔21〕 Good luck having your free speech heard over that!
這件事很嚴重，只要前100大公司決定砸下利潤的1%，就比任何總統、參議員、眾議員候選人的開銷總合都還要多，這樣人民的自由言論怎麼可能還會被聽見？
So did opening the floodgates on this money actually cause a flood? Sure did.
所以，解除企業花錢贊助競選廣告的限制，是否會造成災難呢？當然會。
In 2010, the kind of “independent” groups that corporations are now allowed to support spent $300 million.〔22〕That's more than every midterm election since 1990 combined!〔23〕
在2010年，合法接受企業金援的「獨立」團體就花了3億美元，這比1990年以來所有期中選舉的開銷總合還多！
So corporations are drowning out our voices, getting what they want and our democracy is in trouble.
企業不斷掩蓋人民的心聲，只為追求他們的利益，而我們的民主體制就岌岌可危了。

【人民站出來】

But we can totally save it! People are sooutraged by the Supreme Court Decision that a massive response is mobilizing. Such a huge problem requires a huge solution and we've got one, a new constitutional amendment.
不過我們可以挽救這個局勢，人民對最高法院的判決充滿憤怒，龐大的反對聲浪開始湧現，這麼大的問題需要龐大的解決方案，而我們現在就有一個解決方案，就是新的憲法修正案。
The amendment is smart and clear. It reverses this disaster to our democracy by clarifying that the first amendment isn't meant for for-profit corporations.〔24〕
這個條理清晰的修正案，可以扭轉這場威脅民主的災難，因為其明確指出言論自由權不適用於追求利潤的企業。
I get that amending the constitution is a big, ambitious goal. But it's not impossible. Every time huge positive change has been made in this country, it's because people dreamed big, aimed high, and set ambitious goals. It's time to do that now, because the life of our democracy is on the line.
我知道修憲的工程浩大又困難重重，但修憲並非不可能，美國史上每一次重大而正向的改變，都起因於人民有遠大的夢想和目標。現在正是人民該站出來的時候，因為我們的民主體制已瀕臨危險邊緣。
Public Financing of campaigns would be another huge step forward.〔25〕 Congress is working on a bill right now that would make it possible for candidates to get elected without corporate dollars.〔26〕
公費補助競選是另一個重要的目標，國會正在推動一個公費補助競選的法案，如果通過，候選人就算沒有企業金援也能當選。
Remember, 85% of Americans think that corporations have too much influence in our democracy. That's enough to make change, if we can turn that sentiment into action.
記住，85%的美國人認為企業對民主的影響力太大，這就足以促成改革，只要我們能將大多數人的看法轉化為行動。
Look, the corporations won't get out of our democracy until we, the people, get back in.
記住，企業不可能放開我們的民主體制，除非我們人民動手討回。
So keep fighting for renewable energy, green jobs, health care, safe products and top-notch public education. But save some energy for the battle of our lifetimes.
所以除了要繼續爭取再生能源、綠領工作、醫療保健、安全商品，還有一流的公民教育，我們還要保留一點精力來面對人生最重要的戰役。
...A battle that can open the door to solving all of these things.
打贏這場仗，才有辦法達成上述所有理想。
It's time to put corporations back in their place and to put people back in charge of our democracy.
該是讓企業回歸本份，人民重新掌控民主體制的時刻了。