金錢是言論嗎？──論美國競選經費管制之原罪

Is Money Speech?: The Original Sin of Campaign Finance Regulations of the USA

選舉對當代民主而言是不可或缺的重要因素，其過程必須是公正與公平，始具有正當性。美國是民主的先驅，向來以其民主自豪。但長期以來選舉弊案頻傳以及競選經費屢創新高，因此競選經費的改革一直是美國選舉政治中的重要問題之一。聯邦最高法院在1976年的Buckley v. Valeo判決中，將金錢視為言論，認定限制候選人的競選支出法律（接受公共基金之候選人除外）違反憲法，侵犯人民的言論自由。然而，近年來學理上有認為Buckley案將競選經費之捐獻或支出視為言論，並賦予其與政治性言論相同之保障是錯誤的決定，也是美國競選經費管制之原罪，惟本文主張競選經費之捐獻或支出乃為言論。

Popular election is essential for democracy. The presence of elections requires the integrity and fairness of the process of election. The United States of America is one of the forerunners of democracy and has been proud of her democracy. Her electoral process, however, has been filled with scandals, and the cost of campaigns has broken previous records in the recent national elections. These are the reasons why campaign finance reform has been one of the most important issues in United States election politics. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court of the United States equated political money—expenditures and contributions—to political speech and ruled that federal laws which limited the expenditures of candidates (except candidates who received contributions from public fund) was unconstitutional and therefore violated citizens’ freedom of speech. Some legal scholars argued that the Court simply got it wrong when it concluded that spending money is essentially the equivalent of speaking and therefore entitled to the same high level of First Amendment protection. Equating political money to political speech is the original sin of campaign finance regulations of the USA. This essay, however, seeks to show that political money should be treated as political speech.