美國選舉經費規範的憲政爭議：防腐、言論自由與政治平等

American Constitutional Disputes on Campaign Finance Regulation: Anti-Corruption, Freedom of Speech and Political Equality

10.6229/CPSR.2012.54.01

張福建(Fu-Kien Chang)

美國競選經費規範 ； 防腐 ； 言論自由 ； 政治平等 ； American campaign finance regulation ； anti-corruption, freedom of speech ； political equality

政治學報

54期（2012 / 12 / 01）

1 - 25

繁體中文

選舉是當代民主的必經之途，其過程的廉正與公平，乃是選舉之所以具有正當性的重要因素。美國是民主的先驅，向來以輸出民主自豪，但長久以來選舉弊案頻傳，以及選戰經費之高屢創新猷，都是必須正視的問題。本文嘗試從政治思想的視角，首先回顧與檢視美國選舉相關規範的歷史，並具體討論最高法院在Buckley v. Valeo一案的審理及其引發的種種爭議。之後，文中將以羅爾斯及德沃金的相關評述，說明以平等作為規範選舉經費的考量具有一定的正當性，並指出言論與結社自由雖然至關重大，淨化選風、並確保一個公平的政治平台，卻也為健全民主所必須。

Popular election is essential for democracy and, more often than not, is hastily treated as the equivalent of democracy. The presence of elections, nonetheless, is far from sufficient for a democratic regime, which, among other things, also requires the integrity and fairness of the process of election. The United States of America was one of the forerunners of democracy, and claims to have exported democracy. Her electoral process, however, has been filled with scandals, and the cost of campaigns has broken previous records in the recent national elections with, it seems safe to say, nowhere to stop. As has been argued, campaign finance reform is necessary to rejuvenate American democracy.Explicating the issue of campaign finance in terms of political thought, in the following discussion, I intend to, first, review briefly the history of American election campaign regulation and, in particular, examine the debates involved and implicated in the case of Buckley v. Valeo. Then, drawing on the ideas of both John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin, I argue that it is legitimate and tenable to regulate campaign finance by appealing to the principle of equality. In conclusion, while acknowledging the significance of freedom of speech and of association, I point out that the virtues of integrity and fairness in the political arena are also indispensable for a healthy and enduring democracy.

1. (2010).Comments: Citizens United v. FEC: Corporate Political Speech.Harvard Law Review,124(1),75-82.
2. Abraham, J. R.(2010).Saving Buckley: Creating a Stable Campaign Finance Framework.Columbia Law Review,110(4),1078-1122.
3. Bebchuk, L. A.,Jackson, R. J. Jr.(2010).Corporate Political Speech: Who Decides?.Harvard Law Review,124(1),83-142.
4. Beiner, R.(ed.)(1995).Theorizing Citizenship.Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.
5. Bone, H. A.(1965).American Political and the Party System.New York:McGraw-Hill.
6. Briffault, R.(1999).Issue Advocacy: Redrawing the Elections/politics Line.Texas Law Review,77(7),1751-1802.
7. Burke, E.(1978).The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke.St. Clair Shores, MI:Scholarly Press.
8. Cole, D.(1991).First Amendment Antitrust: The End of Laissez-Faire in Campaign Finance.Yale Law & Policy Review,9(2),236-278.
9. Corrado, A.(ed.),Mann, T. E.(ed.),Ortiz, D. R.(ed.),Potter, T.(ed.)(2005).The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook.Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press.
10. Corrado, A.(ed.),Mann, T. E.(ed.),Ortiz, D. R.(ed.),Potter, T.(ed.),Sorauf, F. J.(ed.)(1997).Campaign Finance Reform: A Sourcebook.Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press.
11. Dworkin, R.(2000).Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
12. Dworkin, R.(2006).Is Democracy Possible Here.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
13. Dworkin, R.(2010).The 'Devastating' Decision.New York Review of Books,57(3),39.
14. Dworkin, R.(1996).The Curse of American Politics.New York Review of Books,43(16),19-24.
15. Dworkin, R.(2010).The Decision That Threatens Democracy.New York Review of Books,57(8),63-67.
16. Fiss, O. M.(1986).Free Speech and Social Structure.Iowa Law Review,71(5),1405-1425.
17. Friendly, F. J. H.、張美慧譯(1987)。金錢真否萬能？選舉、捐款及言論。憲政思潮，80，83-93。
18. Friendly, F. W.(ed.),Elliott, M.(ed.)(1984).The Constitution, that Delicate Balance.New York:Random House.
19. Grant, J. T.,Rudolph, T. J.(2004).Expression vs. Equality : the Politics of Campaign Finance Reform.Columbus, OH:The Ohio State University Press.
20. Hasen, R. L.(2004).Buckley is Dead, Long Live Buckley: The New Campaign Finance Incoherence of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.University of Pennsylvania Law Review,153(1),31-72.
21. Issacharoff, S.(1999).The Constitutional Logic of Campaign Finance Regulation.Pepperdine Law Review,36(2),373-393.
22. Issacharoff, S.,Karlan, P. S.(1999).The Hydraulics of Campaign Finance Reform.Texas Law Review,77(7),1705-1738.
23. Issacharoff, S.,Karlan, P. S.,Pildes, R. H.(2001).The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process.Westbury, NY:The Foundation Press.
24. Karlan, P. S.(1998).Symposium Introduction.Stanford law & Policy Review,10(1),4.
25. Malbin, M. J.(ed.)(2003).Life after Reform.New York:Rowman & Littlefield.
26. Mcmurrin, S. M.(ed.)(1982).The Tanner Lectures on Human Values.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
27. Neuborne, B.(1999).Toward a Democracy Centered Reading of the First Amendment.Northwestern University Review,93(4),1055-1074.
28. Rawls, J.(1996).Political Liberalism.New York:Columbia University Press.
29. Rosenkranz. E. J.(1998).Buckley Stops Here: Loosening the Judicial Stranglehold on Campaign Finance Reform.New York:Century Foundation Press.
30. Schattschneider, E. E.(1960).The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracsovereign People.New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
31. Slabach, F. G.(ed.)(1998).The Constitution and Campaign Finance Reform: An Anthology.Durham, NC:Carolina Academic Press.
32. Sullivan, K. M.(2010).Two Concepts of Freedom Speech.Harvard Law Review,124(1),143-177.
33. 吳重禮、黃綺君(2001)。必要之惡？從McCain-Feingold法案看政治行動委員會的功能和影響。政治科學論叢，15，45-62。
34. 金開鑫(1980)。試析美國總統選舉之「公費競選」制度。問題與研究，19(8)，31-40。
35. 張千帆編(2005)。哈佛法律評論。北京:法律出版社。
36. 張世賢(1981)。美國競選費用及其限制。憲政思潮，54，1-32。
37. 彭子倫(2007)。淡江大學美國研究所。
38. 湯德宗(1980)。簡介西德及美國有關選舉經費的制度。憲政時代，6(2)，77-95。
39. 黃秀端(1990)。政治行動委員會與國會議員的關係。美國月刊，5(7)，60-71。
40. 黃秀端(1993)。政治行動委員會的競選捐獻與國會選舉。美國月刊，8(6)，63-89。
41. 黃競涓(1986)。政治行動委員會－影響美國國會選舉與政策之新勢力。美國月刊，1(4)，16-21。
42. 鄭哲民編(1992)。美國國會之制度與運作。臺北市:中央研究院歐美研究所。
43. 鄭瑞耀(1998)。一九九六年美國民主黨政治獻金案與選舉經費制度改革之探討。歐美研究，28(4)，63-102。
44. 謝延庚(1971)。美國政黨的競選費用。憲政評論，2(3)，4-9。
45. 謝延庚(1972)。美國競選費用的法律限制。思與言，10(4)，76-81。
46. 謝延庚(1972)。美國政黨競選費用的來源。思與言，10(4)，321-348。

1. 許治明(2023)。美國競選經費的限制與使用：憲政主義觀點。中國地方自治，76(3)，31-60。
2. 陸品妃(2019)。平等正義的涵蓋面。政治與社會哲學評論，71，51-101。
3. 周軒逸、李瑞清、吳秀玲(2018)。贏在關鍵時刻─競選廣告訴求內容與發佈時點分析。臺灣民主季刊，15(4)，1-56。