Reading Comprehension Text 4
In a rare unanimous ruling, the US Supreme Court has overturned the corruption conviction of a former Virginia governor, Robert McDonnell. But it did so while holding its nose at the ethics of his conduct, which included accepting gifts such as a Rolex watch and a Ferrari Automobile from a company seeking access to government.
The high court’s decision said the judge in Mr. McDonnell’s trial failed to tell a jury that it must look only at his “official acts,” or the former governor’s decisions on “specific” and “unsettled” issues related to his duties.
Merely helping a gift-giver gain access to other officials, unless done with clear intent to pressure those officials, is not corruption, the justices found.
The court did suggest that accepting favors in return for opening doors is “distasteful” and “nasty”. But under anti-bribery laws, proof must be made of concrete benefits, such as approval of a contract or regulation. Simply arranging a meeting, making a phone call, or hosting an event is not an “official act.”
The court’s ruling is legally sound in defining a kind of favoritism that is not criminal. Elected leaders must be allowed to help supporters deal with bureaucratic problems without fear of prosecution of bribery. “The basic compact underlying representative government,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the court, “assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act on their concerns.”
But the ruling reinforces the need for citizens and their elected representatives, not the courts, to ensure equality of access to government. Officials must not be allowed to play favorites in providing information or in arranging meetings simply because an individual or group provides a campaign donation or a personal gift. This type of integrity requires well-enforced laws in government transparency, such as records of official meetings, rules on lobbying, and information about each elected leader’s source of wealth.
Favoritism in official access can fan public perceptions of corruption. But it is not always corruption. Rather officials must avoid double standards, or different types of access for average people and the wealthy. If connections can be bought, a basic premise of democratic society—that all are equal in treatment by government—is undermined. Good governance rests on an understanding of the inherent worth of each individual.
The court’s ruling is a step forward in the struggle against both corruption and official favoritism.
36. The underlined sentence (Para.1) most probably shows that the court
37. According to Paragraph 4, an official act is deemed corruptive only if it involves
38. The court’s ruling is based on the assumption that public officials are
39. Well-enforced laws in government transparency are needed to
40. The author’s attitude toward the court’s ruling is
答案与解析 (Answers)
36. [C] was contemptuous of McDonnell’s conduct.
解析：第一段划线处提到最高法院虽然推翻了定罪，但却是“holding its nose at the ethics of his conduct（由于恶心而捂着鼻子）”，这形象地表达了法庭对麦克唐纳行为的“蔑视和厌恶（contemptuous）”。
37. [C] concrete returns for gift-givers.
解析：第四段指出，单纯的引荐或安排会议不算腐败，只有证明了“concrete benefits（具体的利益回报）”，如批准合同或规章时，才构成贿赂。因此选 concrete returns。
38. [A] justified in addressing the needs of their constituents.
解析：第五段末尾引用首席大法官 Roberts 的话：代议制政府的基础是假设公职人员会听取“constituents（选民）”的意见并就其关切采取行动。这说明官员处理选民需求是正当的（justified）。
39. [B] guarantee fair play in official access.
解析：第六段提到，需要公开透明的法律（government transparency）来确保“equality of access to government（接触政府的机会平等）”，即保证在接触官员时的公平竞争（fair play）。
40. [D] supportive.
解析：文章末尾最后一句明确总结：“The court’s ruling is a step forward...（法庭的裁决是向前迈进的一步）”，体现了作者对这一裁决的“支持（supportive）”态度。
全文翻译
在一项罕见的一致裁决中，美国最高法院推翻了前弗吉尼亚州州长罗伯特·麦克唐纳的腐败定罪。但它这样做时却对他的行为伦理嗤之以鼻，这些行为包括接受一家寻求接触政府的公司赠送的劳力士手表和法拉利汽车等礼物。高等法院的裁决说，麦克唐纳先生审判中的法官未能告诉陪审团，它必须只看他的"官方行为"，即前州长在与其职责相关的"特定"和"未决"问题上的决定。大法官们认定，仅仅帮助送礼者接触其他官员，除非有明确的意图向这些官员施压，不是腐败。法院确实指出，接受以打开方便之门为回报的好处是"令人反感的"和"恶劣的"。但根据反贿赂法，必须有具体利益的证明，例如合同或法规的批准。仅仅是安排一次会议、打一个电话或举办一个活动不是"官方行为"。法院的裁决在定义一种不属于刑事犯罪偏袒行为方面在法律上是合理的。民选领导人必须被允许帮助支持者处理官僚问题而不必担心被起诉贿赂。首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨为法院写道："代议制政府的基本契约假定公职人员将听取选民的诉求并对其关切采取行动。"但这一裁决强化了公民及其民选代表——而不是法院——确保政府接触平等的必要性。官员绝不能仅仅因为个人或团体提供了竞选捐款或个人礼物而在提供信息或安排会议时偏袒。这种诚信需要在政府透明度方面有严格实施的法律，例如官方会议记录、游说规则和每个民选领导人的财富来源信息。在官方接触中的偏袒可能会煽动公众对腐败的看法。但它并不总是腐败。相反，官员必须避免双重标准，或对普通人和富人的不同类型接触。如果关系可以被购买，民主社会的一个基本前提——所有人在政府面前待遇平等——就被破坏了。良治依赖于对每个个体固有价值的理解。法院的裁决是在反对腐败和官方偏袒的斗争中向前迈进的一步。
核心长难句精解 (Highlighted Sentences)
1. 形象化习语的使用：
"But it did so while holding its nose at the ethics of his conduct, which included accepting gifts..."
【解析】holding its nose at 是点睛之笔，原意是由于难闻而捂住鼻子，引申为“虽然厌恶、反感但不得不接受”。which 引导定语从句解释具体行为。
【翻译】但法庭在这样做（推翻定罪）的同时，对他行为的道德性表现出了厌恶，麦克唐纳的行为包括接受来自一家寻求政府准入的公司的礼物。
"But it did so while holding its nose at the ethics of his conduct, which included accepting gifts..."
【解析】holding its nose at 是点睛之笔，原意是由于难闻而捂住鼻子，引申为“虽然厌恶、反感但不得不接受”。which 引导定语从句解释具体行为。
【翻译】但法庭在这样做（推翻定罪）的同时，对他行为的道德性表现出了厌恶，麦克唐纳的行为包括接受来自一家寻求政府准入的公司的礼物。
2. 法律定义的严谨性：
"Merely helping a gift-giver gain access to other officials, unless done with clear intent to pressure those officials, is not corruption..."
【解析】gain access to 接近/接触。unless 引导条件状语从句。这句话划定了“引荐”与“腐败”的法律界限：除非有明显的施压意图，否则单纯的引荐不是腐败。
【翻译】最高法院的法官们发现，仅仅帮助送礼者接触其他官员，除非带有明显的向那些官员施压的意图，否则不属于腐败。
"Merely helping a gift-giver gain access to other officials, unless done with clear intent to pressure those officials, is not corruption..."
【解析】gain access to 接近/接触。unless 引导条件状语从句。这句话划定了“引荐”与“腐败”的法律界限：除非有明显的施压意图，否则单纯的引荐不是腐败。
【翻译】最高法院的法官们发现，仅仅帮助送礼者接触其他官员，除非带有明显的向那些官员施压的意图，否则不属于腐败。
3. 民主社会的政治前提：
"If connections can be bought, a basic premise of democratic society—that all are equal in treatment by government—is undermined."
【解析】premise 前提。破折号中间是 that 引导的同位语从句，解释说明前提的内容。undermine 是核心词，意为“破坏/削弱”。
【翻译】如果人脉关系可以被收买，那么民主社会的一个基本前提——即所有人在接受政府对待时都是平等的——就会被动摇。
"If connections can be bought, a basic premise of democratic society—that all are equal in treatment by government—is undermined."
【解析】premise 前提。破折号中间是 that 引导的同位语从句，解释说明前提的内容。undermine 是核心词，意为“破坏/削弱”。
【翻译】如果人脉关系可以被收买，那么民主社会的一个基本前提——即所有人在接受政府对待时都是平等的——就会被动摇。