GOP heads to Supreme Court after losing case over TV election ad prices

共和党在电视选举广告价格案中败诉，将上诉至最高法院

Republican campaign committees want the Supreme Court to mandate lower prices for election commercials on broadcast TV stations. If the court agrees, broadcasters would be forced to offer their lowest ad prices to political parties and joint fundraising committees. 共和党竞选委员会希望最高法院强制要求广播电视台降低选举广告的价格。如果法院同意，广播公司将被迫向政党和联合筹款委员会提供其最低的广告价格。

For a more thorough description of the legal issues in the dispute, see this article that Ars published yesterday. In short, US law requires broadcasters to offer individual candidates the “lowest unit charge,” or LUC, during the 60 days before an election. The law helps level the playing field somewhat by letting candidates make their cases to voters who watch broadcast TV without needing to raise exorbitant sums of money. 关于此次争议中法律问题的更详尽描述，请参阅 Ars 昨日发布的文章。简而言之，美国法律要求广播公司在选举前 60 天内向个人候选人提供“最低单位收费”（LUC）。该法律通过让候选人无需筹集巨额资金即可向观看广播电视的选民陈述其主张，在一定程度上帮助营造了公平的竞争环境。

The Trump administration, acting through the Federal Communications Commission, ordered broadcast TV stations to also give these discounts to political parties and joint fundraising committees, which face fewer limits on how much money they can raise and spend. Four Democratic candidates appealed, and a judges’ panel at the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled that the FCC order cannot be enforced because it contradicts the plain language of US law. 特朗普政府通过联邦通信委员会（FCC）下令，要求广播电视台也将这些折扣提供给政党和联合筹款委员会，因为这些组织在筹款和支出金额方面受到的限制较少。四名民主党候选人对此提出上诉，美国第四巡回上诉法院的一个法官小组裁定，FCC 的命令无法执行，因为它与美国法律的明确条文相抵触。

The National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee, which intervened in the case to support the FCC’s position, told the 4th Circuit court yesterday that they intend to appeal to the Supreme Court. 全国共和党国会委员会和全国共和党参议院委员会作为案件的介入方支持 FCC 的立场，他们昨日向第四巡回法院表示，打算向最高法院提起上诉。

GOP seeks quick rulings

共和党寻求快速裁决

The committees submitted an emergency motion for a stay and asked the 4th Circuit to rule on that motion immediately so they can file a petition to the Supreme Court. “Intervenors respectfully request that the Court rule on this stay motion as soon as possible—whether by expediting or waiving response briefs—to permit Intervenors to seek emergency relief at the Supreme Court,” Republican committees told the court. 这些委员会提交了一项紧急暂缓执行动议，并要求第四巡回法院立即对该动议作出裁决，以便他们能向最高法院提交请愿书。共和党委员会向法院表示：“介入方恳请法院尽快对该暂缓动议作出裁决——无论是通过加快程序还是免除答辩状——以允许介入方在最高法院寻求紧急救济。”

The court responded quickly, issuing an order today to deny the Republican committee’s motion and to immediately issue a mandate that can be appealed to the Supreme Court. Republicans will now seek swift action from the Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the 4th Circuit ruling before the 60-day discount period starts on September 4. 法院迅速作出回应，于今日发布命令驳回了共和党委员会的动议，并立即签发了可上诉至最高法院的指令。共和党人现在将寻求最高法院的迅速行动，试图在 9 月 4 日 60 天折扣期开始前推翻第四巡回法院的裁决。

“Candidates and committees are currently drafting, negotiating, and signing contracts with broadcasters for the coming weeks,” the motion said. “In fact, candidates and committees are currently creating the advertisements for the contracts that they’ve already signed with broadcasters. The parties need certainty on those contracts to move forward and conduct effective campaigns.” 动议称：“候选人和委员会目前正在为未来几周与广播公司起草、谈判并签署合同。事实上，候选人和委员会目前正在为他们已经与广播公司签署的合同制作广告。各方需要这些合同的确定性，以便推进并开展有效的竞选活动。”

In another recent case filed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Supreme Court ruled that federal limits on how much a political party can spend in coordination with candidates violates the First Amendment. The elimination of those limits could fuel a bigger onslaught of election ads if broadcasters are forced to offer their lowest ad rates to parties and committees. 在全国共和党参议院委员会提起的另一起近期案件中，最高法院裁定，联邦对政党与候选人协调支出金额的限制违反了第一修正案。如果广播公司被迫向政党和委员会提供最低广告费率，这些限制的取消可能会引发更猛烈的选举广告攻势。

“Flood of coordinated campaign money” into TV ads

“协调竞选资金洪流”涌入电视广告

Anna Gomez, the only Democrat on the FCC, said the agency “is unleashing a flood of coordinated campaign money into broadcast advertising, just as the Supreme Court has cleared the way for unlimited coordinated spending between parties and candidates.” FCC 中唯一的民主党人安娜·戈麦斯（Anna Gomez）表示，该机构“正在向广播广告中释放一股协调竞选资金的洪流，而此时最高法院刚刚为政党与候选人之间无限的协调支出扫清了障碍。”

Gomez also said that forcing broadcast stations to offer deep discounts on their most valuable ad inventory will worsen the stations’ financial problems, contradicting the Trump FCC’s stated goal of helping broadcasters compete against Big Tech and streaming. 戈麦斯还表示，强迫广播电台对其最有价值的广告库存提供深度折扣，将加剧电台的财务问题，这与特朗普政府时期 FCC 宣称的帮助广播公司与大型科技公司及流媒体竞争的目标相矛盾。

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has pushed for bigger broadcast mergers, claiming they are needed to help stations invest in local news. To accomplish that goal, he led a vote to eliminate a rule prohibiting any single broadcast station owner from reaching more than 39 percent of all TV households in the US. The FCC repealed this ownership rule even though the 39 percent figure was specified by Congress in a 2004 law, paving the way for another court battle over the limits of FCC authority. FCC 主席布伦丹·卡尔（Brendan Carr）一直推动更大规模的广播合并，声称这对于帮助电台投资本地新闻是必要的。为了实现这一目标，他主导了一次投票，废除了一项禁止任何单一广播电台所有者覆盖超过全美 39% 电视家庭的规定。尽管 39% 这一数字是国会在 2004 年的一项法律中明确规定的，但 FCC 仍废除了这项所有权规则，这为围绕 FCC 权力界限的另一场法庭之争铺平了道路。

From a legal perspective, all the cases are decided based on interpretations of what Congress meant when it put specific words and phrases into US law. In the law related to the TV advertisement case, the sides disagree over the meaning of “the use of any broadcasting station by any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office in connection with his campaign.” 从法律角度来看，所有案件的裁决都基于对国会在美国法律中写入特定词汇和短语时意图的解释。在与电视广告案相关的法律中，双方对“任何合法竞选公职的候选人为其竞选活动而使用任何广播电台”这一表述的含义存在分歧。

The legal question is whether “use… by” a candidate can refer to ad time purchased on a candidate’s behalf by parties and joint fundraising committees. In the 4th Circuit case, two judges appointed by Democratic presidents ruled that the FCC’s interpretation of the law was wrong, and one judge appointed by a Republican president said the FCC got it right. 法律问题在于，候选人的“使用……”是否可以指代由政党和联合筹款委员会代表候选人购买的广告时间。在第四巡回法院的案件中，两名由民主党总统任命的法官裁定 FCC 对法律的解释是错误的，而一名由共和党总统任命的法官则认为 FCC 的解释是正确的。

GOP has reason for optimism

共和党有理由感到乐观

A potential problem for Republicans is that the FCC position contradicts agency guidance from 1991 and a statement made to the Supreme Court last year by the Trump administration’s own solicitor general. In the recent Supreme Court case over spending limits, US Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in a filing that the “rules require broadcasters to charge low rates for candidate spending, but not for party spending—whether coordinated or independent.” 共和党面临的一个潜在问题是，FCC 的立场与该机构 1991 年的指导意见以及特朗普政府自己的副总检察长去年向最高法院发表的声明相矛盾。在最近关于支出限制的最高法院案件中，美国副总检察长约翰·绍尔（John Sauer）在一份文件中写道，“规则要求广播公司对候选人支出收取低费率，但对政党支出——无论是协调的还是独立的——则不然。”

But Republicans have reason for optimism given the conservative makeup of the Supreme Court and the 4th Circuit dissent from Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a Reagan appointee who argued that the FCC offered a “natural and plausible” interpretation of the law’s reference to “use… by” a candidate. The FCC welcomed the dissent, issuing a statement praising “Wilkinson’s sound and thoughtful analysis.” 但考虑到最高法院的保守派构成，以及第四巡回法院法官 J. 哈维·威尔金森三世（J. Harvie Wilkinson III）的异议，共和党人有理由感到乐观。作为里根总统任命的法官，他认为 FCC 对法律中“候选人使用……”的引用提供了“自然且合理”的解释。FCC 对这一异议表示欢迎，并发表声明称赞“威尔金森的分析稳健且深思熟虑”。

Republicans further argue that courts have no jurisdiction yet because the FCC hasn’t made a “final” decision. The 4th Circuit judges decided they have jurisdiction because the FCC’s failure to act on a petition filed by Democratic… 共和党人进一步辩称，法院目前没有管辖权，因为 FCC 尚未做出“最终”决定。第四巡回法院的法官则裁定他们拥有管辖权，因为 FCC 未能对民主党人提交的请愿书采取行动……