由公司治理觀點論公司政治捐贈之法律規範

The Regulations of Corporate Political Contribution -- Corporate Governance Perspective

10.6543/JMC.2016.0101.04

江朝聖(Chao-Sheng Chiang)

公司治理 ； 政治捐贈 ； 政治獻金 ； 股東會 ； 董事會 ； Corporate Governance ； Political Spending ； Political Contribution ； Shareholders’ Meeting ； Board Meeting

管理與法遵

1卷1期（2016 / 01 / 01）

61 - 89

繁體中文

公司可為慈善捐贈似乎已為學說、實務及法制所普遍接受，惟公司可否為政治捐贈，亦即捐贈予政黨、政治團體及參選人，則尚有爭議。本文由美國最高法院於1990 年所作成Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce 判決，及2010 年作成結論不同的Citizen United v. FEC 判決出發，探討贊成與反對公司為政治捐贈的理由。相較於英國於公司法明文規定公司為政治捐贈之決策機關與揭露之要求，美國法對於決策機關並無特別規定，似與一般商業決策無異，交由董事會作成決策，而對於政治捐贈資訊的揭露，並無法律的強制要求。2011 年8 月由10 位美國法學院教授具名，向美國聯邦證管會請願，請求其以命令強制公開公司揭露政治捐贈資訊，將此問題推上火線。本文即由英國公司法關於政治捐贈規定出發，接著以學者認為關於政治捐贈之股東保障機制，亦即強制揭露、交由股東會決議及由股東提起代表訴訟究責等三個面向出發，探討美國法對於公司捐贈之上述三項保護股東機制之可行性與規範內容。最後，再以英國及美國法制及相關學說討論為基礎，檢討我國相關法制並提出具體之法制建議。

Can a corporation make donation to parties, campaign candidate or other political groups? It has been controversial for decades. In 1990, U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law which prohibits corporations from making donation to candidates who run for state office. However, after debates of two decades, U.S. Supreme Court stroke down a federal law which prohibits corporations from making donation to candidates. Comparing these two cases, we can figure out the reasons which oppose or approve corporate political donation. Traditionally, shareholders are seen as the owners of corporations. When a corporate make political donation, it raises agency problem. In this paper, we compare the regulations of corporate political donation in UK and US form corporate governance perspective. It evaluates three mechanisms which include mandatory disclosure, approval of shareholders, and derivative suit whether are suit for protecting shareholders. Based on the discussions and findings under UK and US laws, this paper reviews the regulations of political donations in Taiwan and makes some suggestions to reform regulations of political donations.

1. 周振鋒(2013)。公司捐贈與相關代理成本問題之研究。臺大法學論叢，42(2)，259-315。
   連結：
2. GlaxoSmithKline. (2010), Political contributions. Retrieved from https://www.gsk.com/media/283453/political-contributions-policy.pdf
3. Atkins, P.(2013).Materiality: A bedrock principle protecting legitimate shareholder interests against disguised political agendas.Harvard Business Law Review,3,363-379.
4. Bainbridge, S. M.(2009).Corporate law.New York, NY:Foundation Press.
5. Bebchuk, L. A.,Jackson, R. J., Jr.(2013).Shining light on corporate political spending.Georgetown Law Journal,101,923-967.
6. Bebchuk, L. A.,Jackson, R. J., Jr.(2010).Corporate political speech: Who decides?.Harvard Law Review,124,83-117.
7. Copland, J. R.(2013).Against an SEC-mandated rule on political spending disclosure: A reply to Bebchuk and Jackson.Harvard Business Law Review,3,381-411.
8. Guttentag, M. D.(2014).On requiring public companies to disclose political spending.Columbia Business Law Review,2014,593-662.
9. Jalilvand, A.(Ed.),Malliaris, A. G.(Ed.)(2012).Risk management and corporate governance.New York, NY:Routledge.
10. Kahn, F. S.(1997).Pandora's box: Managerial discretion and the problem of corporate philanthropy.UCLA Law Review,44,579-676.
11. Klein, W. A.,Coffee, J. C.(2007).Business organization and finance: Legal and economic principles.New York, NY:Foundation Press.
12. Kwak, J.(2013).Corporate law constraints on political spending.North Carolina Banking Institute Journal,18,251-295.
13. Loss, L.,Seligman, J.(2001).Fundamentals of securities regulation.New York, NY:Aspen Law & Business.
14. Rosenberg, D.(2015).Goodwill and the excesses of corporate political spending.Hastings Business Law Journal,11,29-55.
15. Smith, B. A.,Dickerson, A.(2013).The non-expert agency: Using the SEC to regulate partisan politics.Harvard Business Law Review,3,419-451.
16. Taub, J. S.(2012).Money managers in the middle: Seeing and sanctioning political spending after citizens united.N.Y.U. Journal of Legislation & Public Policy,15,443-484.
17. Torres-Spelliscy, C.,Fogel, K.(2011).Shareholder-authorized corporate political spending in the United Kingdom.University of San Francisco Law Review,46,525-579.
18. Verret, J. W.(2013).The securities exchange act is a material girl, living in a material world: A response to Bebchuk and Jackson's "shining light on corporate political spending".Harvard Business Law Review,3,453-471.
19. 吳敏菁(2009)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北，中國文化大學法律學研究所。
20. 邵慶平(2008)。公司法：組織與契約之間。臺北:自刊。
21. 郭盈君(2010)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北，銘傳大學法律學系。
22. 廖大穎(2012)。公司法原論。臺北:三民。
23. 廖大穎、陳啟垂(2011)。論我國法適用「商業判斷原則」與舉證責任之分配。商業判斷原則與企業經營責任，臺北:
24. 劉連煜(1995)。公司捐贈之法律問題。月旦法學雜誌，8，87-94。
25. 劉連煜(2012)。現代公司法。臺北:自刊。

1. 鍾宇軒,曾映綾(2023)。公司政治獻金與公股銀行貸款合約利率：來自臺灣總統大選之證據。臺大管理論叢，33(2)，169-234。