美國法上對於公司言論自由保障之反思──論美國最高法院Citizens United v. F.E.C判決

Should Corporate Speech be Protected? Citizens United v. F.E.C and Its Critiques

2008年美國總統大選民主黨初選時，非營利法人Citizens United出資發行紀錄片「希拉蕊」，對角逐初選的希拉蕊柯林頓做出嚴厲批評，並計畫在初選前夕於美國付費有線頻道上播放。Citizens United擔憂此舉可能違反聯邦兩黨競選改革法（The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act）相關規定，主動至聯邦地方法院請求法院宣告該法之若干法規違憲。2010年最高法院做成Citizens United v. F.E.C.判決，確立了公司與自然人一樣，在憲法上享有完全的言論自由權，公司的競選費用和捐款因而解除相關限制，根本地改變了美國的政治選舉生態。這樣的改變並不是一夕發生，該判決是最高法院判例一步步演進的結果。本文以三個層次來討論何以最高法院會做出這樣的判決，第一個層次是討論公司的法律人格，第二個層次是討論公司在憲法上作為權利主體的地位，第三個層次則討論公司是否被承認享有言論自由。Citizens United v. FEC認為公司的言論固然真有影響力，但並不必然導致貪腐，人民在政治言論市場上應該有同樣的地位表達自己的意見，並不應因為經濟與政治勢力而有差異。Citizens United v. FEC帶來學者激烈的評論和批判，本文詳細審視Citizens United v. FEC判決以及在其之前之相關判決，並且分析美國學者對於公司享有言論自由的反思，逐一梳理其脈絡，並提出觀察與結論。

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United v. FE.C. that corporations shall enjoy the same freedom of speech as individuals. It means the protection of free speech shall not be different based on speaker's identity. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. The precedent, Austin v. Kelly, which permitted distinctions between corporations and natural persons, was also overruled in this decision. Citizens United v. F.E.C. has fundamentally changed the jurisprudence of corporate speech and stirred criticisms from the legal academia. This paper first introduces the lines of precedents with regard to corporate personhood and corporate speech. After discussing the precedents prior to Citizens United v. F.E.C., this paper further analyzes the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion in the Citizens United v. F.E.C. in details. In the last part, this paper asserts that this decision was wrongfully decided by discussing some powerful propositions which was already proposed by US legal scholars.