跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(34.204.180.223) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/05 23:53
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:康素香
研究生(外文):Su-Hsiang Kang
論文名稱:論美國管制法人選舉獨立支出的合憲性爭議
論文名稱(外文):The Constitutional Issues on Regulations of Corporate Independent Expenditures in the USA
指導教授:黃昭元黃昭元引用關係
指導教授(外文):Jau-Yuan Hwang
口試委員:林子儀蘇彥圖
口試委員(外文):Tzu-Yi LinYentu Su
口試日期:2015-07-30
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:法律學研究所
學門:法律學門
學類:一般法律學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2015
畢業學年度:103
語文別:中文
論文頁數:183
中文關鍵詞:競選經費管制聯合公民案法人選舉獨立支出捐獻言論自由之價值法人理論的發展明示宣導議題宣導憲法增修條文第一條選舉宣傳腐化或腐化之表象一般資金獨立分離資金政治平等選舉法例外論
外文關鍵詞:Campaign Finance RegulationsCitizens UnitedCorporationsIndependent ExpendituresContributionsthe Value of Free Speechthe Develop of the Corporate TheoryExpress AdvocacyIssue AdvocacyFirst AmendmentElectioneering CommunicationCorruption or the Appearance of CorruptionGeneral Treasury FundsSeparate Segregated FundsPolitical EqualityElectoral Exceptionalism.
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:294
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
自從二十世紀70年代以來,競選經費的管制一直是美國言論自由領域裡的主要爭議之一。而本世紀最重要的競選經費判決乃聯合公民訴聯邦選舉委員會案(下稱聯合公民案),該判決毫無疑問的被認為是羅伯茨法院所做出最重要以及最具爭議的判決。聯合公民案涉及法人或工會可否在選舉前用其一般資金為競選宣傳。法院在此判決裡宣告2002年的兩黨競選改革法中限制此支出的條文無效。換言之,聯邦最高法院在此判決認為法人或工會跟自然人一樣可以無限制的花錢去贊同或反對候選人。而自此判決做出以來,法人的言論自由權利就更廣泛地被討論著。
本文觀察法人選舉獨立支出的歷史,分析聯邦最高法院與國會間針對管制法人選舉獨立支出之法律爭議。本文認為法人是否享有如同自然人般的言論自由,涉及競選經費是否受言論自由保障,以及法人可否被視為享有言論自由之自然人。本文主張競選經費是言論,但聯合公民案不僅是有欠允當而且是錯的。因為法人是法律所擬制的產物,並非活生生會呼吸的人類,亦非現代國家組成之要素,更無投票權,因此不應享有跟自然人一樣的競選經費的權利,而且維持政治觀念市場的公正性是可以成為限制法人選舉獨立支出的正當化事由。透過探討美國管制法人選舉獨支出的合憲性爭議,本文認為以美國經驗為例證,或許可以成為我國管制法人選舉獨立支出的參考。


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.




第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與問題提出 1
第二節 研究範圍與問題界定 3
第三節 論文限制與研究方法 5
第四節 本文論點與架構 6
第五節 名詞翻譯與定義 8
第二章 美國有關法人選舉獨立支出的法律規範及判決分析 15
第一節 管制競選經費的聯邦立法沿革 15
第一項 1971年前之法制 15
第二項 1971年之《聯邦競選法》 16
第三項 2002年之《兩黨競選改革法》 17
第四項 法人選舉獨立支出聯邦規範之整理分析 20
第二節 競選經費受言論自由保障?:聯邦最高法院判決分析 21
第一項 Buckley v. Valeo之競選經費法理論 22
第一款 事實背景 22
第二款 本案爭點 23
第三款 判決結果 23
第一目 多數意見 23
第二目 不同意見 28
第二項 後 Buckley 時代之競選經費法理論 29
第一款 Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative PAC 29
第二款Nixon v. Shrink Missouri PAC 30
第三款 McConnell v. Federal Election Commission 34
第四款McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission 35
第三節 法人享有無限制選舉獨立支出之保障?:聯邦最高法院判決分析 37
第一項 Citizens United 前之判決分析 37
第一款 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 37
第二款 Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens For Life, Inc. 41
第三款 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce 44
第四款 McConnell v. Federal Election Commission 47
第五款 Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. 50
第二項 Citizens United判決見解 52
第一款 事實背景 52
第二款 本案爭點 53
第三款 判決結果 53
第一目 多數意見 54
第二目 不同意見 61
第三項 歷年判決見解之整理 63
第一款 法人是否享有無限制的選舉獨立支出? 63
第二款 管制目的之歸納與分析 65
第三款 管制手段之歸納與分析 70
第四項 Citizens United 後續效應:暗錢與暗錢團體橫行於選舉過程 71
第一款 527組織(527 organizations) 72
第二款 超級政治行動委員會(Super PACs) 74
第三款 暗錢團體(Dark money groups) 76
第四款 可能的解決方案 78
第四節 小結 81
第三章 選舉經費之性質及分類 83
第一節 概說 83
第二節 競選經費是言論? 85
第一項 聯邦最高法院之見解 85
第二項 學理論辯 85
第一款 肯定說 85
第二款 否定說 88
第三項 本文立場 95
第三節 捐獻與支出之區別 98
第一項 聯邦最高法院之立場 98
第二項 學理之見解 99
第四節 小結 101
第四章 法人與自然人在選舉法之區別? 103
第一節 概說 103
第二節 言論自由之理論基礎 103
第一項 一元價值論 104
第一款 追求真理說 104
第二款 表現自我說 106
第三款 健全民主程序說 107
第二項 多元價值論 113
第三項 小結 113
第三節 以「法人人格理論」為區別依據 117
第一項 法人人格理論的發展 117
第一款 擬制理論(Fiction Theory) 118
第二款 特權理論(Concession Theory) 119
第三款 合夥契約理論(Partnership-Contract Theory) 119
第四款 自然實體理論(Natural Entity Theory) 120
第二項 聯邦最高法院相關判決見解與學理分析 120
第一款 言論自由以外之案件 120
第二款 言論自由之案件 124
第一目 前Citizens United 時期 125
第二目 Citizens United 案 128
第三項 本文見解 131
第四節 小結 134
第五章 限制法人選舉獨立支出的憲法論述 135
第一節 概說 135
第二節 學說爭議及分析 136
第一項 法人人格理論? 136
第二項 言說式民主 v. 代議公正性?選舉公正性? 138
第三項 歧視 v. 非歧視? 144
第四項 欠缺實證? 146
第五項 憲政史 v. 立法史? 151
第六項 國家可對媒體進行徹底管制? 153
第七項 股東權益可依法人內部治理程序而受到保障? 156
第八項 敵對式民主觀 v. 參與式民主觀? 157
第三節 選舉法例外論? 160
第四節 本文主張 164
第一項 理論基礎 164
第二項 管制目的 164
第三項 管制手段 166
第一款 資金來源之管制 166
第二款 金額上限之管制 167
第三款 申報與聲明之管制 167
第六章 結論 169
第一節 本文研究心得 169
第二節 美國法對我國法的可能啟示 170
參考文獻 173


一、中文文獻
(一)中文書籍
古賀純一郎,高泉益譯(2005)。《政治獻金》。台北:台灣商務。
林子儀(1999)。《言論自由與新聞自由》。台北:元照。
———(2002)。〈言論自由導論〉,收錄於李鴻禧合著,《台灣憲法
之縱剖橫切》,頁103-179。台北:元照。
(二) 中文期刊
吳重禮、黃綺君(2001)。〈必要之惡?從 McCain-Feingold 法案看政治行動委員會的功能與影響〉,《政治科學論叢》,15期,頁45-62。
林子儀(1989)。〈金權政治的法律規範〉,《國家政策季刊》,3期,頁44-48。
法治斌(1981)。〈略論管制競選經費之捐助與花費〉,《憲政時代》,6卷3期,頁60-61。
胡維剛(1997)。〈美國的聯邦選舉與捐獻〉,《全國律師》,1卷12期,頁17-30。
湯德宗(1980)。〈簡介西德及美國有關競選經費的制度〉,《憲政時代》,6卷2期,頁77-95。
郭俊偉 (2010)。〈站在政治獻金背後「說話」的利益團體—省思美國多元化社會的自由與平等〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,7卷2期,頁77-123。
劉靜怡(2006)。〈言論自由第七講:政治結社、競選活動相關經費之規範與言論自由〉,《月旦法學教室》,44期,頁32-41。
賴祥蔚 (2011)。〈言論自由與真理追求──觀念市場隱喻的溯源與檢
視〉,《新聞學研究》,108期,頁103-139。
蘇彥圖 (2007)。〈在權利與結構之間―初探美國民主法學的認同與典範〉,收錄於許志雄、蔡茂寅、周志宏編,《現代憲法的理論與現實―李鴻禧教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集》,頁227-267,台北:元照。
———(2011)。〈追求更公平合理的政治經費法制〉,收錄於《打造直接民主的新公義體系──法制與政治重大議題研究論文集》,頁122-155。
———(2013)。〈憲政民主的死人之手問題─以反省憲法的規範權威為中心〉,發表於第九屆「憲法解釋之理論與實務」學術研討會:憲政主義與人權理論的移植與深耕,中研院人文社會科學館,中央研究院法律學研究所。
(三)碩士論文
廖元豪(1995)。競選經費管制策略之研究:自願公費選舉制度之提出,東吳法律研究所碩士論文。

二、英文文獻
(一)專書:
Bentley, A. (1967). The process of government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bohman, J. & Rehg, W. (1997). Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Corrado, A. (2005). New Campaign Finance Reform Sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Dworkin, R. (2000). Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
Epstein, E. M. (1969). The Corporation in American Politics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
Habermas, J. (2001). The Inclusion of Other: Studies in Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harry G. H. & Alexander, J. R. (1983). Laws of Corporations And Other Business Enterprises. St. Paul, Minn.: West Pub. Co.
Herring, P. (1929). Group representation before Congress. Baltimore, Md., The Johns Hopkins press.
Holmes, O. W. (1921). Collected Legal Papers. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and Co.
Issacharoff, S., Karlan P. S. & Pildes, R. H. (2012). The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of The Political Process (4th ed.). New York, NY: Foundation Press Thomson/West.
Lessig, L. (2011). Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It. New York, NY: Twelve.
Lin, T. Y. (1987). Corporations and the value of free speech. Cornell University.
Meiklejohn, A. (2000). Free Speech And Its Relation To Self-Government. Union, N.J.: Lawbook Exchange.
———. (1960). Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of The People. New York:Harpe.
Neuman, W. L. (1994). Social Research Methods: Qualitative And Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Post, R. C. (2014). Citizens Divided: Campaign Finance Reform and the Constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory Of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Redish, M. H. (2001). Money Talks: Speech, Economic Power, and the Value of Democracy. New York, NY: New York University Press.
———. (2013). The adversary First Amendment: free expression and the foundations of American democracy. Stanford, California: Stanford Law Books, an imprint of Stanford University Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (1993). Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Teachout, Z. (2014). Corruption In America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tribe, L. & Matz, J. (2014). Uncertain Justice. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
(二)期刊論文:
Ackerman, B. (1999). The new separation of powers. Harvard Law Review, 113, 633-725.
Anderson, D. A. (1983). The origins of the press clause. UCLA Law Review, 30, 455-541.
Baker, C. E. (1982). Realizing self-realization: corporate political expenditures and Redish''s “the value of free speech”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 130 (3), 646-677.
Bamman, N. (2012). Campaign finance: public funding after Bennett. Journal of Law & Politics, 27, 323-355.
Bezanson, R. P. (1999). The developing law of editorial judgment. Nebraska Law Review, 78, 754-857.
———. (2011). No middle ground? Reflections on the Citizens United decision. Iowa Law Review, 96, 101-119.
Breyer, S. (2002). Our democratic Constitution. New York University Law Review, 77, 245-272.
Briffault, R. (2012). Updating disclosure for the new era of independent spending. Journal of Law & Politics, 27, 683-719.
Chemerinsky, E. (2011). Not a free speech court. Arizona Law Review, 53, 723-734.
Dworkin, R. (1996). The curse of American politics. New York Review of Books, 43(16), 19-24.
———. (2010). The decision that threatens democracy. New York Review of Books, 58, 63-67.
Eberhardt, C. N. (1986). Integrating the right of association with the Bellotti right to hear—Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc. Cornell Law Review, 72, 159-194.
Ellis, A. R. (2011). Citizens United and tiered personhood. John Marshall Law Review, 44, 717-749.
Epstein, R. (2011). Citizens United v. FEC: The constitutional right that big corporations
should have but do not want. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 34, 639-661.
Chemerinsky, E. (2010). Roberts Court and freedom of speech. Federal Communications Law Journal, 63, 579-590.
———. (2010). The most important decision of the term. TRIAL, May 2010, 54-55.
Evans, A. D. (2009). A requiem for the retail investor?. Virginia Law Review, 95, 1105-1129.
Farber, D. A. (2004). Implementing equality. Election Law Journal, 3(2), 371-383.
Fiss, O. M. (1986). Free speech and social structure. Iowa Law Review, 71, 1405-1425.
Foley, E. B. (1994). Equal-dollars-per-voter: A constitutional principle of campaign finance. Columbia Law Review, 94, 1204-1257.
Gardner, J. A. (2000). Madison’s hope: Virtue, self-interest, and the design of electoral systems. Iowa Law Review, 86, 87-172.
Gerken, H. (2010). Keynote Address: Lobbying as the New Campaign Finance. Georgia State University Law Review, 27, 1155-1168.
Hasen, R. L. (2012). Lobbying, rent-seeking, and the Constitution. Stanford Law Review, 64, 191-255.
Hellman, D. (2010). Money talks but it isn’t speech. Minnesota Law Review, 95, 953-1002.
Horwitz, M. J. (1985). Santa Clara revisited: The development of corporatetheory. West Virginia Law Review, 88, 173-224.
Hovenkamp, H. (1988). The classical corporation in American legal thought. Georgetown Law Journal, 76, 1593-1689.
Houston, M. (2010). Protecting corporate and labor union involvement in elections. ORANGE CNTY. LAWYER 10.
Issacharoff, S. (2010). On political corruption. Harvard Law Review, 124, 118-142.
Kagan, E. (1996). Private speech, public purpose: The role of governmental motive in First Amendment doctrine. The University of Chicago Law Review, 63, 413-517.
Kuhner, T. K. (2011). Citizens United as neoliberal jurisprudence: The resurgence of economic theory. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and Law, 18, 395-468.
Leach, J. (2013). Citizens United: Robbing America of its democratic idealism. Daedalus, 142 (2), 95-101.
Levinson, J. A. 2013.The original sin of campaign finance law: Why Buckley v. Valeo is wrong. University of Richmond Law Review, 47, 881-938.
———. (2011). We the corporations?: The constitutionality of limitations on corporate electoral speech after Citizens United. University of San Francisco Law Review, 46, 307-358.
Levy, R. E. (1999). Defining Express Advocacy for Purposes of Campaign Finance Reporting and Disclosure Laws. Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, 8, 90-125.
Lobingier, C. S. (1938). The natural history of the private artificial person: A comparative study in corporation origins. Tulsa Law Review, 13, 41.
Melone, M. A. (2010). Citizens United and corporate political speech: Did the Supreme Court enhance political discourse or invite corruption?. DePaul Law Review, 60, 29-98.
McConnell, M. W. (2013). Reconsidering Citizens United as a press clause case. Yale Law Journal, 123, 412-458.
Napoli, P. M. (1999). The marketplace of ideas metaphor in communications regulation. Journal of Communication, 49 (4), 151-169.
O’Kelley, C. R.T. (1979). The constitutional rights of corporations revisited: Social and political expression and the corporation after First National Bank v. Bellotti. Georgetown Law Journal, 67, 1347-1383.
Ortiz, D. R. (2012). Recovering the individual in politics. New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 15, 263-287.
Overton, S. A. (2000). Mistaken identity: Unveiling the property characteristics of political money. Vanderbilt Law Review, 53, 1235-1310.
Patton, W. & Bartlett, R. (1981). Corporate persons and freedom of speech: The political impact of legal mythology. Wisconsin Law Review, 1981, 494-512.
Persily, N. & Lammie, K. (2004). Perceptions of corruption and campaign finance: When public opinion determines constitutional law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153, 119-180.
Pildes, R. H. (2004). The Supreme Court 2003 term—Forward: the constitutionalization of democratic politics. Harvard Law Review, 118, 25-154.
Pinaire, B. K. (2001). A funny thing happened on the way to the market: The Supreme Court and political speech in the electoral process. Journal of Law & Politics, 17, 489-551.
Pollman, E. (2011). Reconceiving corporate personhood. Utah Law Review, 4, 1629-1675.
Post, R. C. (2000). Reconciling theory and doctrine in First Amendment jurisprudence. California Law Review, 88, 2353-2374.
———. (2008). Viewpoint discrimination and commercial speech. Loyola of Los Angeles Law, 41, 169-180.
Prentice, R. A. (1981). Consolidated Edison and Bellotti: First Amendment protection of corporate political speech. Tulsa Law Journal, 16, 599-657.
Rawls, J. (1981). The basic liberties and their priority. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 3, 3-89.
Redish, M. & Seigal, P. B. (2013). Constitutional adjudication, free expression and the fashionable art of corporation-bashing. Texas Law Review, 91, 1447-1474.
Ribstein, L. E. (1992). Corporate political speech. Washington and Lee Law Review, 49, 109-159.
Richards. E. L. (1983). The rise and fall of the contribution/expenditure distinction: Redefining the acceptable range of campaign finance reforms. New England Law Review, 18, 367-394.
Ripken, S. K. (2009). Corporations are people too: a multi-dimensional approach to the corporate personhood puzzle. Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 15, 97-177.
———. (2011). Corporate First Amendment rights after Citizens United: An analysis of the popular movement to end the constitutional personhood of corporations, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, 14, 209-259.
Rubenfeld, J. (2001). The First Amendment''s purpose. Stanford Law Review, 53, 767-832.
Schauer, F. & Pildes, R. H. (1998). Electoral exceptionalism and the First Amendment. Texas Law Review, 77, 1803-1836.
Schneider, C. E. (1985). Free speech and corporate freedom: A comment on First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti. Southern California Law Review, 59, 1227-1291.
Sharma, M. (2000). Money as property: The effects of doctrinal misallocation on campaign finance reform. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 41, 715-743.
Shiffrin, S. H. (1983). The First Amendment and economic regulations: Away from a general theory of the First Amendment. Northwestern University Law Review, 78, 1212-1283.
Smith, B. A. (1997). Money talks: Speech, corruption, equality, and campaign finance.
Spencer, D. M., & Wood, A. K. (2014). Citizens United, states divided: an empirical analysis of independent political spending. Indiana Law Journal, 89(1), 315-372.
Stewart, P. (1979). Or of the press. Hastings Law Journal, 26, 631-637.
Stoll, M. L. (2005). Corporate rights to free speech?. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 261-269.
Sullivan, K. M. (1998). Against campaign finance reform. Utah Law Review, 1998, 311-329.
Teachout, Z. (2009). The anti-corruption principle. Cornell Law Review, 94, 341-414.
Volokh, E. (2002). Why Buckley v. Valeo is basically right. Arizona State Law Journal, 34, 1095-1103.
Wilson, M. J. W. (2010). Too much of a good thing: Campaign speech after Citizens United. Cardozo Law Review, 31, 2365-2392.
Winkler, A. (1998). Beyond Bellotti, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 32, 133-220.
———. (1999). Election law as its own field of study: The Corporation in election law, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 32, 1243.
———. (2006). Corporate personhood and the rights of corporate speech. Seattle University Law Review, 30, 863-873.
Wright, J. S. (1976). Politics and the Constitution: Is money speech?. Yale Law Journal, 85, 1001-1021.
(三)網路資源:
Barnes, R. (January 28, 2010). Alito dissents on Obama critique of court decision available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012800053.html .
Byrd, A. & Hager, E. B. (July 7, 2015). The Age of Super PACs, available at http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000003778583/the-age-of-super-pacs.html?smid=fb-share.
Chemerinsky, E. (April 9, 2014). Guest Blog: Erwin Chemerinsky, The Future of Campaign Finance Laws, available at http://hamilton-griffin.com/the-future-of-campaign-finance-laws/ .
Choi, V. (July 9, 2015). help us #getmoneyout, available at http://www.stampstampede.org/blogs/stampstampede/35169668-new-survey-more-americans-want-to-reduce-corporate-union-political-spending .
Ciepley, D. (2012). Neither Persons nor Associations: Why Recent Corporate Law Scholarship Undercuts Citizens United and the Constitutional Rights of Corporations, available at http://works.bepress.com/david_ciepley/2.
Cole, D. (January19, 2015). The Supreme Court’s Billion-Dollar Mistake, available at http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/jan/19/citizen-united-billion-dollar-mistake/.
Dolan, E. W. (June 4, 2014). Law Professor Tells Senators: If Money is Speech, Outlawing Prostitution is Unconstitutional, available at http://www.rawstory.com/ rs/2014/06/law-professor-tells-senators-if-money-is-speech-outlawing-prostitution-is-unconstitutional/.
Dworkin, R. (February 25, 2010). The “Devastating” Decision, available at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/feb/25/the-devastating-decision/.
———. (May 13, 2010). The Decision That Threatens Democracy, available at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/13/decision-threatens-democracy/ .
Editorial Board, (April 5, 2015). The Post''s View: Political speech or corruption?, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/political-speech-or-corruption/2015/04/05/ab3b043e-da2a-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html?postshare=8281428769750092.
Egan, T. (April 24, 2015). The Plutocrat Primary, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/opinion/timothy-egan-the-plutocrat-primary.html?_r=0.
Ewens, H. (July 7, 2014). This Kid Made an App That Exposes Sellout Politicians, available at http://www.vice.com/read/greenhouse-app-hannah-ewens-nick-rubin-201.
Feldman, N. (July 6, 2015). Why Nonprofits Get Away With Campaigning, available at http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-06/why-nonprofits-get-away-with-campaigning.
Fish, S. (February 1, 2010). What is the First Amendment For?, OPINIONATOR: EXCLUSIVE ONLINE COMMENTARY FROM THE TIMES, available at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/what-is-the-first-amendment-for/.
Frumin, B. (January 21, 2010). Obama: Supreme Court Ruling ''A Major Victory For Big Oil, Wall Street Banks, Health Insurance Companies'', available at http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obama-supreme-court-ruling-a-major-victory-for-big-oil-wall-street-banks-health-insurance-companies.
Fulton, D. (August 11, 2015). To Un-Rig Electoral System, A Plot to Treat ''Presidency as Referendum'', available at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/08/11/un-rig-electoral-system-plot-treat-presidency-referendum.
Greenhouse, L. (May 28, 2015). Supreme Court Litmus Testing in the 2016 Election, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/opinion/supreme-court-litmus-testing-in-the-2016-election.html?ref=opinion&_r=0.
Hasen, R. L. (October 2014). RESPONSE: “Electoral integrity,” “Dependence Corruption,” and What’s New Under the Sun, available at http://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-89-online-symposium/response-electoral-integrity-dependence-corruption-and-whats-new.
Keating, C. (January 21, 2010). Obama Blasts U.S. Supreme Court; Declares "Major Victory for Big Oil, Wall Street Banks'' and Special Interests, available at http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2010/01/obama-blasts-us-supreme-court.html.
Kellman, L. (January 28, 2010). Obama Scolds the Supreme Court, to the Annoyance of One Justice, available at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/13/decision-threatens-democracy/ .
Kroll, A. (September 18, 2014). 5 Signs the Dark-Money Apocalypse Is Upon Us, available at http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/dark-money-2014-elections-house-senate.
Lessig, L. (June 16, 2012). “Upon the People Alone” How to end the corrupting influence of our domestic princes, available at http://hive.slate.com/hive/how-can-we-fix-constitution/article/upon-the-people-alone?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=home_oneline
———. (October 1, 2014). We Should Be Protesting, Too, available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/we-should-be-protesting-too_b_5917486.html.
Levitt, J. (October 2014). Electoral integrity: The confidence game, available at http://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-89-online-symposium/electoral-integrity-confidence-game.
Liptak, A. (August 6, 2009). Sotomayor Faces Big Workload of Complex Cases, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/us/politics/07scotus.html?_r=0 .
———. (Jan. 22, 2010). Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all.
Marshall, J. (January 28, 2010). State of the Union Ethics Alarms, available at http://ethicsalarms.com/2010/01/28/state-of-the-union-ethics-alarms/.
MTA Coalition (2013). Move to Amend, available at https://movetoamend.org/about-us.
Murray, M. (April 26, 2013). Money, Politics and Overturning Citizens United, available at http://bluehampshire.com/2013/04/26/money-politics-and-overturning-citizens-united/.
Nocera, J. (November 7, 2014). Big Money Wins Again in a Romp, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/opinion/joe-nocera-big-money-wins-again-in-a-romp.html?smid=fb-share .
Opam, K. (August 11, 2015). Lawrence Lessig wants to run for president to pass one bill, then resign, available at http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obama-supreme-court-ruling-a-major-victory-for-big-oil-wall-street-banks-health-insurance-companies.
OpenSecrets.org Center for Responsive Politics (2014), available at http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00236489&cycle=2014 .
———. (2015). 527s: Advocacy Group Spending, available at https://www.opensecrets.org/527s/index.php(last visited: April 3, 2015).
———. (2015). Super PACs, available at https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2014.
Prokop, A. (April 29, 2015). Campaign finance reformers just won a massive victory at the Supreme Court, available at http://www.vox.com/2015/4/29/8514243/Williams-Yulee-v-Florida-Supreme-Court.
Shabad, R. (January 2, 2014). Public Lacks Confidence in Government, Poll Shows, available at http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/194230-poll-public-lacks-confidence-in-government.
Shipler, D. K. (July 18, 2012). Money is Speech, Poverty is Silence, available at http://shiplerreport.blogspot.tw/2012/07/money-is-speech-poverty-is-silence.html.
Smith, B. A. (Jan. 22, 2010). Newsflash: First Amendment Upheld, available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704509704575019112172931620.
———. (January 22, 2012). The War on Political Free Speech, available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204468004577165281345369336.
———. (January 25, 2010). The Citizens United Fallout, available at http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0125bs.html.
Stein, S. (August 10, 2015). Larry Lessig Believes Democracy Is Screwed. So He''s Running For President To Save It, available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/larry-lessig-2016_55c93a18e4b0f1cbf1e61b66.
Stone, G. R. (May 2, 2012). Is Money Speech?, available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/is-money-speech_b_1255787.html.
Tanfani, J. (October 18, 2014). Unprecedented Amount of Dark Money available at http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-dark-money-20141019-story.html#page=1.
The New York Times’s Editors (January 21, 2010). How Corporate Money Will Reshape Politics, available at http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/how-corporate-money-will-reshape-politics/#eugene.
The New York Times’s Editorial Board (May 6, 2012). An Idea Worth Saving, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/opinion/sunday/an-idea-worth-saving.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share.
———. (June 13, 2014). The Koch Cycle of Endless Cash, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/opinion/the-koch-cycle-of-endless-cash.html?emc=edit_tnt_20140613&nlid=65488962&tntemail0=y&_r=1.
———. (November 8, 2014). Dark Money Helped Win the Senate, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/opinion/sunday/dark-money-helped-win-the-senate.html?smid=fb-share.
Thee-Brenan, M. (April 2, 2014). Polls Show Broad Support for Campaign Spending Caps, N.Y. TIMES, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/polls-show-broad-support-for-campaign-spending-caps.html.
Toner, M. E., Trainer, K. E. & Missimore, J. (Sep. 2011). What Is a Super PAC?, available at http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&id= 7458.
Tribe, L. H. (June 13, 2012). The Once-and-for-All Solution to Our Campaign Finance Problem: How citizens can unite to undo Citizens United, available at http://hive.slate.com/hive/how-can-we-fix-constitution/article/the-once-and-for-all-solution-to-our-campaign-finance-problems.
Tritch, T.(April 3, 2015). President Obama Could Unmask Big Political Donors, available at http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/no-springtime-renewal-in-the-job-market/.



QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 吳重禮、黃綺君(2001)。〈必要之惡?從 McCain-Feingold 法案看政治行動委員會的功能與影響〉,《政治科學論叢》,15期,頁45-62。
2. 林子儀(1989)。〈金權政治的法律規範〉,《國家政策季刊》,3期,頁44-48。
3. 胡維剛(1997)。〈美國的聯邦選舉與捐獻〉,《全國律師》,1卷12期,頁17-30。
4. 湯德宗(1980)。〈簡介西德及美國有關競選經費的制度〉,《憲政時代》,6卷2期,頁77-95。
5. 郭俊偉 (2010)。〈站在政治獻金背後「說話」的利益團體—省思美國多元化社會的自由與平等〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,7卷2期,頁77-123。
6. 劉靜怡(2006)。〈言論自由第七講:政治結社、競選活動相關經費之規範與言論自由〉,《月旦法學教室》,44期,頁32-41。
7. 林晏州、沈立,(2001),市民農園需求之研究,戶外遊憩研究,14(1),55-81。
8. 林梓聯,(1998),充滿生機魅力的田園生活,農政與農情,7, 36-61。
9. 胡懋麟,(2002),加入WTO後台灣農業發展的新願景,國家政策論壇,2(5),1-6。
10. 陳肇堯、胡學彥,(2002),休閒農場遊客認知與滿意度分析 – 以南部地區為例,戶外遊憩研究,15(3),31-54。
11. 鄭健雄、陳昭郎,(1996),休閒農業經營策略思考方向之研究,農業經營管理年刊,2,123-144。
12. 賴美蓉、王偉哲,(1999),遊客對休閒農業之認知與體驗之研究 - 以苗栗飛牛牧場為例,戶外遊憩研究,12(1),24-25。
 
無相關點閱論文