標題：埃隆·馬斯克（Elon Musk）可能剛剛找到了一種購買我們選舉的方法

第一位埃隆·馬斯克（Elon Musk）抓住了聯邦官僚機構的控制權，並將其弄壞了。然後，他指揮了威斯康星州保守派最高法院候選人布拉德·席梅爾（Brad Schimel）的競選活動，並擊敗了它。

Elon Musk's extraordinary intervention in the Trump administration, unveiled in a recent New York Times article, has sparked discussion about the role of big donors in politics.

埃隆·馬斯克（Elon Musk）在最近的《紐約時報》（New York Times）的一篇文章中揭示了特朗普政府的非凡干預，引發了人們對大捐助者在政治中的作用的討論。

As the article highlights, Musk's vast wealth and willingness to spend heavily on political causes are undeniable. However, the article also notes that, despite contributing nearly $1 million to a joint fund-raising committee for Trump's re-election and over $250 million in super PAC spending, Musk prefers not to donate directly to candidates. Instead, he focuses on funding organizations that support candidates indirectly.

正如文章所強調的那樣，馬斯克的巨大財富和大量花在政治事業上的意願是不可否認的。但是，文章還指出，儘管為特朗普連任的聯合籌款委員會捐款了近100萬美元，超過2.5億美元的超級PAC支出捐款，但馬斯克不願直接向候選人捐款。相反，他專注於間接支持候選人的資助組織。

This strategy allows Musk to exert influence over a broad range of political activity without tying himself to specific candidates. While super PACs cannot coordinate directly with candidates, they can spend independently to support or oppose them. In essence, super PACs act as intermediaries, amplifying the voice of big donors.

這種策略使馬斯克在不綁定特定候選人的情況下對廣泛的政治活動產生影響。儘管超級PAC不能直接與候選人協調，但他們可以獨立支出以支持或反對他們。從本質上講，超級PAC作為中介機構，擴大了大捐助者的聲音。

The article further mentions that Musk's contributions to joint fund-raising committees were made with the understanding that they would be used to support Trump's candidacy. Joint fund-raising committees are formed by candidates, political parties, and political action committees to pool contributions and support common political goals.

文章進一步提到，馬斯克對聯合籌款委員會的貢獻是為了了解它們將被用來支持特朗普的候選人資格。聯合籌款委員會由候選人，政黨和政治行動委員會組成，以匯總捐款並支持共同的政治目標。

However, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) failed to enforce a 1971 law that prohibits joint fund-raising committees from coordinating on how contributions are spent. This omission, in effect, permits the mega-rich to directly command candidates' campaigns and advise on how campaign funds are utilized.

但是，聯邦選舉委員會（FEC）未能執行1971年的法律，該法律禁止聯合籌款委員會協調如何花費。實際上，這種遺漏使大型富裕人士可以直接指揮候選人的競選活動，並就如何利用競選資金進行建議。

This non-ruling, which slipped past most news outlets and came too late in the race to influence the outcome, could drastically transform the 2026 midterms.

這個不統治的人滑過了大多數新聞媒體，在競賽中為時已晚，無法影響結果，這可能會巨大的改變2026年中期。

Joint fund-raising committees are meant to allow candidates, parties, and PACs to jointly fund-raise but not jointly spend. Yet, in 2024, Republican candidates began running ads backed by joint fund-raising committee money, claiming that such ads were just fund-raising appeals.

聯合籌款委員會旨在允許候選人，當事方和PAC共同籌款，但不能共同支出。然而，在2024年，共和黨候選人開始在聯合籌款委員會資金的支持下投放廣告，聲稱這些廣告只是籌款的上訴。

Democrats asked the FEC to intervene, but the commissioners, evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, deadlocked. As it stands, nothing is preventing major donors from using joint fund-raising committees to closely cooperate with candidates.

民主黨人要求FEC進行干預，但專員在共和黨人和民主黨人之間均勻分配了僵局。就目前而言，沒有什麼可以阻止主要捐助者使用聯合籌款委員會與候選人密切合作。

This represents a significant shift in campaign finance. Back in 2010, when the Supreme Court ruled that PACs that do not donate to candidates but spend independently to support them can collect unlimited sums, many viewed it as a threat to American democracy.

這代表了競選財務的重大轉變。早在2010年，當最高法院裁定不向候選人捐款而是獨立支出以支持他們的PAC可以收取無限的款項，許多人認為這是對美國民主的威脅。

But those fears were largely exaggerated. For instance, despite rumors of super PACs bankrupting candidates, it's noteworthy that in the 2024 campaign, all three candidates who withdrew—Larry Hogan, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Tim Scott—were financially strong and had formidable super PAC support.

但是這些恐懼在很大程度上被誇大了。例如，儘管有謠言說超級PACS破產了候選人，但值得注意的是，在2024年的競選活動中，所有三名候選人撤回了Larry Hogan，Vivek Ramaswamy和Tim Scott，這在財務上很強大，並獲得了強大的超級PAC支持。

Moreover, because of a provision in a 1971 campaign finance law, super PACs must pay higher rates for TV ads than candidates' campaigns do in swing states. This factor, along with the ease of small-dollar online giving to candidates, meant that super PACs never had as much impact as they were expected to.

此外，由於1971年競選法律法律的規定，超級PAC必須為電視廣告支付比候選人在搖擺州的競選活動的費用更高。這一因素，以及對候選人的小額美元在線捐贈的便利，這意味著超級PAC從未像他們預期的那樣產生那麼多的影響。

Small donors also played a major role in the 2024 campaign. According to FEC data, in each of the past three presidential elections with Trump as the Republican nominee, the Democratic candidate has received far more money from contributions of $200 or less than Trump: 2.5 times more in 2016, 1.4 times more in 2020, and 3.3 times more in 2024.

小型捐助者在2024年的競選活動中也發揮了重要作用。根據FEC的數據，在過去的三個總統選舉中，特朗普是共和黨提名人，民主黨候選人從200美元或低於特朗普的捐款中獲得了更多的錢：2016年的2.5倍，2020年的1.4倍，而2024年的3.3倍。

With Democrats benefiting from small-donor contributions and super PACs facing disadvantages in ad rates, Republicans saw an opportunity in bending the rules of joint fund-raising committees.

隨著民主黨人受益於小型捐款和超級PAC面臨劣勢的AD率，共和黨人看到了一個機會，這是有機會的，這彎曲了聯合籌款委員會的規則。

Jon Berkon of the Elias Law Group, which often represents the Democratic Party in litigation, explained that joint fund-raising committees get the lowest unit rate for ads, the same as candidates, which is a huge advantage. Super PACs have to pay the regular rate, which can be three to five times higher in swing states during high-volume ad periods.

Elias Law Group的Jon Berkon通常代表民主黨在訴訟中，他解釋說，聯合籌款委員會獲得了廣告的最低單位率，與候選人相同，這是一個巨大的優勢。超級PAC必須支付常規費用，在大批量廣告期間，鞦韆州的三到五倍。

Berkon argued that broadening the power of joint fund-raising committees will fundamentally change the orientation of candidates, placing even greater emphasis on the need to raise funds from larger sources.

伯肯認為，擴大聯合籌款委員會的權力將從根本上改變候選人的方向，從而更加強調從大型來源籌集資金的必要性。

This shift could have implications for policy outcomes. For instance, in 2024, the cryptocurrency magnates Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss gave approximately $2 million in bitcoin to Trump's joint fund-raising committee, tying the contribution to Trump's pledge to put an end to the Biden administration's war on crypto.

這種轉變可能會對政策結果產生影響。例如，在2024年，加密貨幣大亨泰勒（Tyler）和卡梅隆·溫克爾沃斯（Cameron Winklevoss）向特朗普的聯合籌款委員會捐款了約200萬美元，這與特朗普承諾的貢獻聯繫在一起，以結束比登政府對加密貨幣的戰爭。

This joint fund-raising committee covered about $5 million in online ad costs for the Trump campaign. After Trump took office, Gary Gensler, the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission and an advocate for crypto regulation, was fired.

這個聯合籌款委員會涵蓋了特朗普競選活動約500萬美元的在線廣告費用。特朗普上任後，證券與交易委員會主席，加密法規的倡導者加里·金斯勒（Gary Gensler）被解僱。

However, Musk's disturbing role in the White House may be more indicative of the future. The world's richest man, with a net worth of nearly $300 billion, gained access to Trump'

但是，馬斯克在白宮的令人不安的角色可能更能表明未來。世界上最富有的人，淨資產近3000億美元，可以進入特朗普