Supreme Court forces TV stations to sell more election ads at steep discounts
Supreme Court forces TV stations to sell more election ads at steep discounts
美国最高法院裁定：电视台必须以大幅折扣向政党出售更多竞选广告
In a victory for Republican campaign committees, the Supreme Court issued an order on Friday that forces broadcast TV stations to cut the prices of election ads purchased by political parties and joint fundraising committees. The September 4 ruling came in response to a petition filed by the National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee.
在一场共和党竞选委员会的胜利中，美国最高法院周五发布了一项命令，强制广播电视台降低政党和联合筹款委员会购买竞选广告的价格。这项 9 月 4 日的裁决是针对全国共和党国会委员会（NRCC）和全国共和党参议院委员会（NRSC）提交的请愿书作出的。
The Supreme Court order was issued just in time for the start of a 60-day period before the election, in which broadcasters are required by US law to offer ad discounts to individual candidates. Because of the top court’s order, TV stations must also give their lowest ad rates to political parties and joint fundraising committees, which face fewer limits on how much money they can raise and spend.
最高法院的这项命令发布得恰逢其时，正值大选前 60 天窗口期的开始。根据美国法律，广播公司在此期间必须向个人候选人提供广告折扣。由于最高法院的命令，电视台现在也必须向政党和联合筹款委员会提供最低广告费率，而这些组织在筹款和支出金额方面受到的限制较少。
The legally required discount is known as the “lowest unit charge,” or LUC. A US law that applies to any licensed station that airs election ads requires that the lowest price be charged for “the use of any broadcasting station by any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office in connection with his campaign.” The main 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.
法律要求的这种折扣被称为“最低单位收费”（LUC）。美国法律适用于任何播放竞选广告的持牌电视台，要求对于“任何合法合格的公职候选人为其竞选活动而使用任何广播电台”的行为，必须收取最低价格。核心法律问题在于，候选人的“使用”是否可以涵盖由政党和联合筹款委员会代表候选人购买的广告时段。
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) this year issued a public notice ordering broadcast TV stations to give the discounts to parties and joint fundraising committees. While both major parties could take advantage of the discounted ads, the Trump administration has pushed for the change, and four Democratic candidates contested it in court.
美国联邦通信委员会（FCC）今年发布了一份公告，要求广播电视台向政党和联合筹款委员会提供这些折扣。虽然两大政党都可以利用这些折扣广告，但特朗普政府一直在推动这一变革，而四名民主党候选人对此提出了法律诉讼。
The Democratic candidates won at the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where a judges’ panel found that the FCC public notice contradicts the plain language of US law that limits the discount to individual candidates. The Republican campaign committees then filed an emergency motion for a stay that would block the Fourth Circuit ruling, and the Supreme Court granted the stay on Friday.
民主党候选人在美国第四巡回上诉法院胜诉，该法院的一个法官小组裁定，FCC 的公告与美国法律的明文规定相抵触，因为法律将折扣限制在个人候选人范围内。随后，共和党竞选委员会提交了一项紧急暂缓执行动议，旨在阻止第四巡回法院的裁决，最高法院于周五批准了该暂缓令。
The Supreme Court didn’t rule on the merits of the case but said the Fourth Circuit should not have intervened because the FCC hasn’t made a “final” decision on a challenge filed by the Democratic candidates.
最高法院并未就案件的实质内容作出裁决，但表示第四巡回法院不应进行干预，因为 FCC 尚未就民主党候选人提出的质疑作出“最终”决定。
Coordinated spending / 协同支出
The stay could have a major impact during this election-ad season, in part because of a previous Supreme Court decision that struck down related limits on campaign spending. That case also involved the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
这项暂缓令可能会在本届竞选广告季产生重大影响，部分原因是最高法院此前曾作出裁决，废除了相关的竞选支出限制。那起案件也涉及全国共和党参议院委员会。
“Just months ago, the Supreme Court lifted all limits on how much political parties can spend in direct coordination with candidates. Now that same money can also buy campaign ads at the lowest price the law requires broadcasters to charge only to individual candidates,” Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Anna Gomez, the commission’s only Democrat, said on Friday.
“就在几个月前，最高法院取消了政党与候选人直接协同支出的所有限制。现在，同样的资金还可以以法律仅要求广播公司向个人候选人收取的最低价格购买竞选广告，”联邦通信委员会委员、该委员会唯一的民主党人安娜·戈麦斯（Anna Gomez）周五表示。
Gomez was referring to the Friday ruling and a June decision in which the Supreme Court struck down federal limits on how much a political party can spend in coordination with candidates. Gomez said the latest ruling “opens the door to a flood of dark money that will let a handful of wealthy donors pool unlimited contributions,” while broadcasters that are already struggling financially “are the ones absorbing the cost.”
戈麦斯指的是周五的裁决以及 6 月份的一项决定，当时最高法院废除了联邦对政党与候选人协同支出金额的限制。戈麦斯表示，最新的裁决“为大量黑钱打开了大门，让少数富有捐赠者可以汇集无限的捐款”，而本已财务困难的广播公司“却成了承担成本的一方”。
The Supreme Court order on TV ad prices was unsigned, with a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The ruling was per curiam, meaning at least five of the nine justices agreed, but the court didn’t say how each justice ruled.
最高法院关于电视广告价格的命令未署名，凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊（Ketanji Brown Jackson）大法官提出了异议。该裁决为“法院意见”（per curiam），意味着九名大法官中至少有五人同意，但法院并未说明每位大法官的具体投票情况。
“For the foregoing reasons, the application for stay presented to the Chief Justice [John Roberts] and by him referred to the Court is granted,” the order said. The order said, “the Communications Act makes clear that an aggrieved party must wait for the Commission to resolve its application for review by order before filing a petition for judicial review.”
命令称：“基于上述理由，提交给首席大法官（约翰·罗伯茨）并由其转交法院的暂缓执行申请已获批准。”命令还指出：“《通信法》明确规定，受损害方必须等待委员会通过命令解决其审查申请后，才能提交司法审查请愿书。”
SCOTUS says courts must wait for FCC ruling / 最高法院：法院必须等待 FCC 裁决
The Fourth Circuit panel decided in a 2-1 ruling that the FCC’s inaction amounted to a “constructive denial.” The panel also found that the FCC public notice to TV stations constitutes a final order, giving the court jurisdiction to review it. The Supreme Court disagreed.
第四巡回法院小组以 2 比 1 的投票结果裁定，FCC 的不作为等同于“推定拒绝”。该小组还认为，FCC 给电视台的公告构成了最终命令，赋予了法院审查该命令的管辖权。最高法院对此表示不同意。
“Because the candidates’ application for review was pending when they filed their petition for review, the Fourth Circuit likely lacked statutory jurisdiction to address their challenge. Its holding to the contrary splits with every other Circuit to have considered the issue,” the Supreme Court said.
最高法院表示：“由于候选人在提交审查请愿书时，其审查申请仍处于待决状态，第四巡回法院很可能缺乏处理其质疑的法定管辖权。其相反的裁决与所有其他审理过此问题的巡回法院的意见相左。”
The word “likely” is key, because under the standard to win a stay, the Republican committees had to show “a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will vote to reverse the judgment below” and “a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.” It thus appears likely that the Supreme Court will take up the case and issue a more substantial ruling in the Republican committees’ favor.
“很可能”一词是关键，因为根据赢得暂缓令的标准，共和党委员会必须证明“法院多数派投票推翻下级法院判决的前景是公平的”，以及“拒绝暂缓令将导致不可挽回的损害的可能性”。因此，最高法院很可能会受理此案，并作出更有利于共和党委员会的实质性裁决。
The court majority also found that Republican Party committees “will likely suffer irreparable harm absent a stay” because having to pay more for advertising space “hamper[s] their efforts to reach the electorate in the critical weeks leading up to the midterms” and “implicates their First Amendment rights to speak and coordinate their political activities freely.”
法院多数派还认为，共和党委员会“若没有暂缓令，很可能会遭受不可挽回的损害”，因为被迫为广告位支付更多费用“阻碍了他们在中期选举前关键几周内接触选民的努力”，并“涉及他们根据第一修正案自由发表言论和协调政治活动的权利”。
This part of Friday’s decision cited the Supreme Court’s previous ruling that limits on coordinated spending violated the First Amendment. Jackson’s dissent favorably quoted Fourth Circuit Judge James Wynn’s opinion that “an agency may not reserve to itself the power to defeat judicial review through delay or inaction.”
周五裁决的这一部分引用了最高法院之前的裁决，即对协同支出的限制违反了第一修正案。杰克逊在异议中引用了第四巡回法院法官詹姆斯·韦恩（James Wynn）的观点，即“机构不得通过拖延或不作为来保留阻止司法审查的权力”。