| dc.contributor | 法律學系 | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 廖元豪 | zh_TW |
| dc.date (日期) | 2012 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 21-Aug-2014 09:09:03 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 21-Aug-2014 09:09:03 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 21-Aug-2014 09:09:03 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/69059 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 競選經費的管制，是為了防止金錢力量不當地影響民主政治。然而在民主選舉中，競選經費也有助於使選民能夠做出資訊充分的決定。因此這個議題涉及了民主政治基本概念的爭議—民主是否與金錢影響相容？自由是否等於無限制的自由放任競爭？ 美國自從1976年，最高法院以牴觸言論自由為名宣告「競選支出上限」規定違憲後，相關議題就成為憲法學熱門爭議。一連串的判決，漸漸在言論自由與競選經費管制措施畫出一條界限。最高法院更在2010年正式承認法人擁有與個人相同的言論自由，開啟了企業直接以金錢投入選戰的大門，更引發學界之熱烈討論。 本研究擬探討下列問題，期能對未來台灣修改相關法令與思考民主與金錢之憲法議題，有所助益。 1. 競選時期的金錢捐贈與支出，與言論自由關係如何？ 2. 言論自由，是否就等於法令「放任」？任何的規範都構成干預嗎？ 3. 從憲法角度觀之，競選經費管制之正當目的為何？「拉平差距」「公平競爭」，是憲法容許的概念嗎？ 4. 各類競選經費管制手段，其合憲性如何？實證上之效果如何？ 5. 更深層的問題：民主與金錢之關係為何？ | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | Campaign finance regulation is to prevent the inadequate monetary influence on democracy. However, money in elections may help voters make informed decision. The regulation of campaign finance is therefore related to the basic controversy of democracy—Is democracy consistent with monetary influence? Is liberty equal to unlimited, laissez faire election campaign? These topics have been very contentious constitutional issues since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the “spending limit” provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act on the ground of Free Speech. Thereafter, a series of decisions gradually drew a line between Free Speech and campaign finance regulation. The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling recognizing that corporations enjoy the same free speech protection as natural person is more surprising in that it opened the gate for the businesses to pour their wealth power into election campaign. The decision gives rise to academic circles’ hot debates. This project is intended to explore the following questions: 1. The relationship between campaign contribution/expenditure and Free Speech. 2. Is freedom of speech equivalent to “no law?” Is any regulation deemed “interference?” 3. What sort of regulatory goal could be regarded as constitutionally legitimate? Is “Equalization of the gaps” or “fair competition” a constitutionally permitted regulatory end? 4. How about the constitutionality of the various regulatory measures? How’s the respective empirical effect? 5. The deep question is about the desirable relationship between democracy and wealth. | en_US |
| dc.format.extent | 589212 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 行政院國家科學委員會 | en_US |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 計畫編號NSC101-2410-H004-033 | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | 美國最高法院有關競選經費管制措施與表現自由關係之判決研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title.alternative (其他題名) | On the U.S. Supreme Court$S Rulings Regarding Campaign Finance Regulation and Free Expression | en_US |
| dc.type (資料類型) | report | en |
