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

張福建(Fu-Kien Chang)

《政治學報》 54期 (2012/12) Pp. 1-25

https://doi.org/10.6229/CPSR.2012.54.01

摘要

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。

關鍵字

美國競選經費規範 ； 防腐 ； 言論自由 ； 政治平等

並列摘要

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.

並列關鍵字

American campaign finance regulation ； anti-corruption, freedom of speech ； political equality

參考文獻

(2010).Comments: Citizens United v. FEC: Corporate Political Speech.Harvard Law Review.124(1),75-82.

Abraham, J. R.(2010).Saving Buckley: Creating a Stable Campaign Finance Framework.Columbia Law Review.110(4),1078-1122.

Bebchuk, L. A.,Jackson, R. J. Jr.(2010).Corporate Political Speech: Who Decides?.Harvard Law Review.124(1),83-142.

Beiner, R.(ed.)(1995).Theorizing Citizenship.Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.

Bone, H. A.(1965).American Political and the Party System.New York:McGraw-Hill.