網路選舉宣傳揭露資助者、外國勢力與言論自由

Disclosure of the Sponsorship of Online Election Propaganda, Foreign Influence, and Free Speech

2016年俄羅斯介入美國總統大選，引發美國和全世界對外國勢力透過網際網路介入內國選舉問題的關注。美國此之前早就已有法規禁止外國人為選舉捐贈與獨立廣告支出。2019年起，聯邦和各州希望將選舉廣告揭露資助者身分之法規，擴張及於網際網路之廣告，並課予網路服務業者相關責任。本文歸納整理過去美國最高法院對選舉廣告支出之揭露義務，曾處理過的判決與論理。進而介紹2018年馬里蘭州線上競選透明和問責法，以及為何第四巡迴法院McManus案宣告部分條文違憲。此外，對於聯邦禁止外國人對選舉為捐款和獨立支出，2011年哥倫比亞特區地區法院之Bluman v. FEC案曾宣告相關條文合憲。透過歸納整理上述三方面之相關判決，希望瞭解美國法院對此類議題所採取違憲審查之方法，以及其可能的合憲範圍。最後回頭討論臺灣相關法案，包括臺灣選罷二法對選舉宣傳相關揭露規定、2018年行政院對選罷二法所提修正草案，和2019年底通過之反滲透法。本文將說明，反滲透法不但嚴重侵害臺灣人民自身之言論自由，且其實沒有處理到網際網路上之政治宣傳。

Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election has drawn attention in the U.S. and around the world to the issue of foreign influencer interfering in domestic elections through the Internet. The U.S. already has laws prohibiting foreigners from making election donations and spending on independent advertising. Beginning in 2019, the federal and state hopes to expand the regulations for disclosing the identity of sponsors in election advertisements to the Internet ads and give Internet service providers relevant responsibilities. This article summarizes and sorts out the constitutional review and reasoning that the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt with in the past regarding the disclosure obligation of election advertising spending. Then we introduce the 2018 Maryland Online Electioneering Transparency and Accountability Act, and why the 4th Circuit McManus case declared some provisions unconstitutional. In addition, the 2011 Bluman v. FEC case of the District Court for the District of Columbia declared the constitutionality of the federal prohibition on foreign contributions and independent expenditures for elections. By summarizing the relevant judgments in the above three aspects, I hope to analyze the method of constitutional review adopted by the U.S. courts on such issues, as well as its possible constitutional scope. Finally, we will go back to discuss Taiwan, including explaining the disclosure regulations of Taiwan’s Election Laws on election propaganda, the amendment draft proposed by the Executive Yuan to the Election Laws in 2018, and the Anti-Infiltration Act passed at the end of 2019. This article will show that the Anti-Infiltration Act not only seriously violates the freedom of speech of Taiwanese, but also does not deal with political propaganda on the Internet at all.