The Constitutional Issues on Regulations of Corporate Independent Expenditures in the USA

自從二十世紀70年代以來，競選經費的管制一直是美國言論自由領域裡的主要爭議之一。而本世紀最重要的競選經費判決乃聯合公民訴聯邦選舉委員會案(下稱聯合公民案)，該判決毫無疑問的被認為是羅伯茨法院所做出最重要以及最具爭議的判決。聯合公民案涉及法人或工會可否在選舉前用其一般資金為競選宣傳。法院在此判決裡宣告2002年的兩黨競選改革法中限制此支出的條文無效。換言之，聯邦最高法院在此判決認為法人或工會跟自然人一樣可以無限制的花錢去贊同或反對候選人。而自此判決做出以來，法人的言論自由權利就更廣泛地被討論著。 本文觀察法人選舉獨立支出的歷史，分析聯邦最高法院與國會間針對管制法人選舉獨立支出之法律爭議。本文認為法人是否享有如同自然人般的言論自由，涉及競選經費是否受言論自由保障，以及法人可否被視為享有言論自由之自然人。本文主張競選經費是言論，但聯合公民案不僅是有欠允當而且是錯的。因為法人是法律所擬制的產物，並非活生生會呼吸的人類，亦非現代國家組成之要素，更無投票權，因此不應享有跟自然人一樣的競選經費的權利，而且維持政治觀念市場的公正性是可以成為限制法人選舉獨立支出的正當化事由。透過探討美國管制法人選舉獨支出的合憲性爭議，本文認為以美國經驗為例證，或許可以成為我國管制法人選舉獨立支出的參考。Campaign finance regulation has been one of the key issues involving freedom of speech in the United States since 1970s of the 20th century. And the most important campaign finance judicial decision of this century is Citizens United v. FEC (Citizens United), which, without question, will likely be remembered as the most significant and controversial decision of the Roberts Court. Citizens United addressed the question of whether corporations or unions may use general treasury funds to pay for electioneering communications before an election. The Court in Citizens United invalidated the portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that limited such spending. In other words, the Court held that when it comes to spending unlimited money for or against political candidates, corporations or unions should be treated identical to human beings. The right to freedom of speech enjoyed by corporations has been debated more extensively since then. This article observes the history of corporate independent expenditures, analyzes legal disputes over campaign finance regulation between the Supreme Court and the Congress in relation to corporate independent expenditures. This article argues that whether corporations enjoy the same free speech protection as individuals involves whether political money given in election equals a form of protected speech under the First Amendment and whether corporations can be treated as individuals granted freedom of speech. This article addresses that political money should be treated as political speech, but Citizens United is not only illconceived but also wrong. Corporations are legal fictions. They are not living, breathing human beings, not the elements of modern countries, and have no voting rights. Therefore, they should not be treated as individuals in the campaign finance context and the goal of keeping the integrity of the marketplace of political ideas would justify a legislative limit on corporate independent expenditures. By discussing the constitutional issues on regulations of corporate independent expenditures in the USA, this article seeks to show that the American experience probably could serve well as an example for us to follow in regulating corporate independent expenditures