| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 法律學研究所 === 103 === 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.
|
|---|
