特朗普以公謀私的潛在風險

On November 3, the US agency charged with safeguarding workers’ rights ruled that the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas had violated federal law by refusing to hold contract talks with a union representing housekeepers and other staff.

11月3日，美國負責維護勞動者權(quán)利的機構(gòu)裁定，位于拉斯維加斯的特朗普國際酒店(Trump International Hotel)拒絕與代表保潔員及其他員工的工會舉行合同談判的行為，違反了聯(lián)邦法律。

Five days later, the lodging’s co-owner — Donald Trump — was elected president of the US, putting him in a position to appoint a Republican majority at the regulator, the National Labor Relations Board, that could overturn the decision.

5天后，該酒店的共同所有人——唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)——當選美國總統(tǒng)，使他可以任命一個共和黨人占多數(shù)的國家勞資關(guān)系委員會(National Labor Relations Board)，該委員會可能會推翻之前的裁定。

The possibility points to one of the central ethical dilemmas facing a Trump administration. There has never been a president-elect with more potential conflicts between his financial interests and his official duties. But with his inauguration set for January 20, Mr Trump has yet to present a formal proposal to insulate himself from criticism that he is putting aside the general welfare in favour of his own.

這種可能性直指特朗普政府面臨的核心倫理困境之一。從沒有哪位當選總統(tǒng)面對的個人經(jīng)濟利益與公職責任之間的潛在沖突，比特朗普更多。但是就職典禮即將于1月20日舉行，特朗普卻尚未提出正式方案來反駁指責他將個人利益置于大眾福祉之上的批評。

During the campaign, Mr Trump suggested he might transfer his holdings into a “blind trust” — in the manner of many of his predecessors — managed by his oldest children, Donald Jr, Ivanka and Eric. But critics say the trust would be neither blind, because its assets are so well-known, nor independent. They note the three Trump scions have already been named as members of their father’s transition team.

在競選期間，特朗普曾暗示他可能會效仿之前許多位當選總統(tǒng)，把資產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)入“保密信托”，由他三個最年長的孩子小唐納德(Donald Jr)、伊萬卡(Ivanka)和埃里克(Eric)管理。但是批評人士稱，該信托將是既不保密(因為其資產(chǎn)是眾所周知的)又不獨立的。他們指出，特朗普家的這三個孩子已經(jīng)被任命為父親過渡小組的成員了。

“Just turning management over to the kids doesn’t solve the problem — he would still retain ownership,” said Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer in the administration of George W Bush. “He hasn’t given us any plan that will remove those conflicts of interest.”

“只是把管理權(quán)交給孩子并不能解決問題——他仍然會保留所有權(quán)，”曾在小布什(George W Bush)政府擔任白宮倫理律師的理查德•佩因特(Richard Painter)稱，“他還沒有給出任何可以消除這些利益沖突的計劃。”

Norman Eisen, a former legal ethics adviser for President Barack Obama, said “the best thing” for Mr Trump would be to liquidate his business holdings and invest the proceeds in a real blind trust run by an independent trustee. But he adds that Mr Trump has no legal obligation to do so, nor any seeming inclination, either.

曾任總統(tǒng)巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)法律倫理顧問的諾曼•艾森(Norman Eisen)稱，特朗普“最好”能出售其商業(yè)資產(chǎn)并把所得收入投入由獨立受托人管理的真正的保密信托中。但是他補充稱，特朗普沒有這么做的法律義務，也沒有表現(xiàn)出任何類似意向。

“We have never confronted a situation like this one before and it poses some very serious challenges and risks,” Mr Eisen says. “As the shock of the result wears off, the president-elect and his team — and all of us — need to address those risks.”

“我們之前從沒有遇到過類似局面，這帶來了一些非常嚴峻的挑戰(zhàn)和風險，”艾森稱，“隨著人們對選舉結(jié)果的震驚慢慢平息，當選總統(tǒng)及其團隊——以及我們所有人——都需要應對這些風險。“

Mr Painter said he sees two big potential conflicts for Mr Trump. The first involves his hundreds of millions of dollars in debt and the perception that his borrowings could influence regulation in his administration.

佩因特認為特朗普面臨兩大潛在利益沖突。第一個涉及他數(shù)億美元的債務以及人們對他的借貸可能影響其政府制定相關(guān)規(guī)定的看法。

Complicating matters further is the fact that one of Mr Trump’s biggest current lenders is Deutsche Bank, which is now in talks with the US Department of Justice involving its handling of mortgage-backed securities.

使問題更為復雜的是，特朗普目前最大的債權(quán)人之一是德意志銀行(Deutsche Bank)。該銀行目前正在就其對抵押貸款證券的處理與美國司法部(US Department of Justice)進行談判。

Another pitfall involves a section of the US constitution known as the “emoluments clause”. It essentially forbids a president from receiving anything of value from “any king, prince or foreign state” without congressional approval — no small issue for a business executive with holdings from Ireland and Scotland to Panama and the Philippines that could benefit materially from policies in those places.

另外一個隱患涉及被稱為“薪酬條款”的一條美國憲法條款。該條款從本質(zhì)上禁止美國總統(tǒng)在未得到國會批準的情況下接受來自“任何國王、王子或者外國”的任何有價值的東西——對于一個在從愛爾蘭和蘇格蘭、到巴拿馬和菲律賓等國都擁有資產(chǎn)、可能極大地受益于這些地區(qū)政策的商人來說，此事非同小可。

Other potential difficulties can be found closer to home. The Trump Organization, for example, now operates a hotel in the government-owned Old Post Office Building in Washington. As president, Mr Trump would appoint the head of the federal General Services Administration, which manages the property in the nation’s capital.

其他潛在的困難可能出現(xiàn)在不那么遙遠的地方。例如，特朗普集團(Trump Organization)如今在華盛頓由政府所有的老郵局大樓(Old Post Office Building)里經(jīng)營著一家酒店。作為總統(tǒng)，特朗普將任命聯(lián)邦總務署(General Services Administration)的負責人，該機構(gòu)管理那座位于美國首府的大樓。

His reputation as a man of the people could be put at risk by his oversight of the National Labor Relations Board. Because of squabbles in recent years between Mr Obama and the Republican-controlled Senate, only three of the five seats on the board have been filled, two by Democrats and one by a Republican.

他對國家勞資關(guān)系委員會的監(jiān)督可能會將他屬于人民的名聲置于危險之中。由于最近幾年奧巴馬和由共和黨控制的參議院之間的爭吵，該委員會的5個委員席位只填補了3個，其中兩位委員是民主黨人，還有一位是共和黨人。

Catherine Fisk, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said she expects Mr Trump will be able to quickly win Senate approval for two new members of the NLRB, giving Republicans control of the agency.

加州大學歐文分校(University of California,Irvine)的法學教授凱瑟琳•菲斯克(Catherine Fisk)稱，她認為特朗普可以很快得到參議院的批準，任命兩位新的國家勞資關(guān)系委員會委員，使得共和黨人控制該委員會。

Although the NLRB is unlikely to revisit findings of fact, she said “clever lawyers” might be able to come up with a potential challenge to the board’s ruling requiring the Trump International Hotel to negotiate with the Culinary Workers Union in Las Vegas.

盡管國家勞資關(guān)系委員會不太可能重新審核認定的事實，但是她稱“聰明的律師”可能會想出可能挑戰(zhàn)該委員會這一裁定(要求特朗普國際酒店與拉斯維加斯餐飲業(yè)工會(Culinary Workers Union)舉行談判)的辦法。

Meanwhile, the Trump Organisation — which did not respond to requests for comment — has appealed against the ruling to the US Court of Appeals in Washington.

與此同時，特朗普集團已就該判決上訴至位于華盛頓的美國上訴法院(US Court of Appeals)。該集團未回應置評請求。

“Everyone expects that many of the decisions of the past eight years will be reversed,” Ms Fisk said.

“所有人都預計過去八年的很多決定將被推翻，”菲斯克稱。

“It certainly raises the risk that the president is going to govern not in the interest of the electorate, but in his own interest.”

“這當然會加大這一風險——這位總統(tǒng)在治理國家時不會以選民的利益為重、而是會以個人利益為先。”