English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 82529/111677 (74%)
造訪人次 : 21467436      線上人數 : 685
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧:
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號",以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋,建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位,可獲得較完整資料
  • 進階搜尋
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/116087
    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/116087


    題名: 論競選支出管制之合憲性
    On the Constitutionality of Campaign Expenditure Regulation
    作者: 邱品嘉
    Chiu, Pin Chia
    貢獻者: 廖元豪
    邱品嘉
    Chiu, Pin Chia
    關鍵詞: 競選言論
    競選經費
    競選支出
    獨立支出
    政治平等
    政治腐敗
    共和主義
    多元主義
    巴克利訴瓦萊奧案
    聯合公民訴聯邦選舉委員會案
    Campaign speech
    Campaign finance
    Campaign expenditure
    Independent expenditure
    Political equality
    Political corruption
    Republicanism
    Pluralism
    Buckley v. Valeo
    Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
    日期: 2018
    上傳時間: 2018-03-02 11:50:45 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 競選支出管制體現著一國政治發展的軌跡。美國各時期的競選支出管制,皆是為了因應政治發展下無可避免的弊害。這些制度的偏離,有些源自於科技的自然發展,有些則是先前的管制的不良產物。由此可知,政治並不存在完全的「自然狀態」,制度環境深深影響著民主的運作。

    然而,美國聯邦最高法院卻不這麼認為。在目前法院的觀點中,只有「去管制化」的選舉才會是正常的政治運作。在法院的憲法解釋下,無限制的競選支出是自然狀態下的產物,因此幾乎所有的競選支出管制都是民主制度中的異物。

    不過,本文並不贊同聯邦最高法院的看法。本文指出,聯邦最高法院的憲法見解其實也只是源自多元主義的民主觀點,絕不是所謂的自然狀態。而且,與聯邦最高法院的認知不同,憲法之中其實更蘊藏著共和主義的典範。在共和主義的典範下,競選支出管制並非不容於美國憲法之中。

    回到我國,雖然競選支出管制目前仍屬於低度管制的狀態,但是基於促進政治平等與對抗政治腐敗的重要價值,勢必需要參考美國的管制經驗以改善我國當下的選舉環境。而且,與美國類似,我國憲法也蘊藏著共和主義的理念。因此,我國憲法也不會完全排斥管制競選支出。最後,本文並借鏡美國法制附帶地提出一些管制芻議,供立法參考。
    The regulation of campaign expenditure traces a country’s political development. Regulations enacted in different periods in U.S. history are intended to respond to certain inevitable maladies arising from political developments. Some of the institutional distractions come from the natural progress of technology, others are the results of previous regulations. Therefore, there is nothing “natural” in politics, democracy is deeply affected by the institutional background in which it operates.

    However, the current U.S. Supreme Court comes with a different idea. According to recent opinions of the Court, deregulated elections are the basis of the ideal political process, and unlimited expenditure is natural in politics. As a result, almost every measure to regulate campaign expenditure is abnormal in a democracy.

    This thesis disagrees with the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions. As this thesis points out, these opinions are derived from a pluralistic view of democracy, rather than the natural status of democracy. Furthermore, contrary to the recognition of the Court, the U.S. Constitution implies a paradigm of Republicanism. Based on this paradigm, the regulation of expenditure is not “wholly foreign” to the Constitution.

    In Taiwan, campaign expenditure is still under a light touch regulation regime. However, in order to promote political equality and prevent political corruption in the election process, it is necessary to learn from the U.S. experiences. In addition, our Constitution similarly implies an idea of Republicanism to that of the U.S. Therefore, the regulation of campaign expenditure is not “wholly foreign” to our constitution, either. Building on the experiences of campaign expenditure regulation in the U.S., I believe that some legislative reform proposals are worthy of consideration.
    參考文獻: 一、 中文文獻
    (一) 專書
    王澤鑑,民法總則,2009年6月。
    行政院研究發展考核委員會,政治競選廣告管理制度之研究,1999年11月。
    吳庚、陳淳文,憲法理論與政府體制,增訂四版,2016年9月。
    李念祖,案例憲法I:憲法原理與基本人權概論,二版,2007年。
    陳新民,憲法學釋論,修訂七版,2011年9月。
    賴錦珖,公職人員選舉罷免法釋論,2003年6月。
    (二) 專書論文
    林子儀,言論自由之理論基礎,言論自由與新聞自由,元照,2002年。
    林子儀,新聞自由的意義及其理論基礎,言論自由與新聞自由,元照,2002年。
    林子儀,言論自由與內亂罪-「明顯而立即危險原則」之闡釋,言論自由與新聞自由,元照,2002年。
    林子儀,論接近使用媒體權,言論自由與新聞自由,元照, 2002年。
    林子儀,言論自由導論,台灣憲法之縱剖橫切,元照,頁103-179,2002年12月。
    林超駿,法官選舉制度下對於候選人競選言論之規範-兼評Republican Party of Minnesota v. White乙案,美國最高法院重要判決之研究-二〇〇〇~二〇〇三,頁395-447,2007年。
    法治斌,跳脫衣舞也受表意自由的保護嗎?,法治國家與表意自由,頁268-285,2003年。
    張文貞,審議民主與國民主權之合致或悖離?-美國制憲經驗的分析,載:憲政基本價值,頁31-58,2009年6月。
    陳伯良,是貪污?還是民主現實?-初探美國聯邦法制下貪污概念的兩種圖像,載:刑事法與憲法的對話-許前大法官玉秀教授六秩祝壽論文集,頁545-585,2017年3月。
    湯德宗,三權憲法、四權政府與立法否決權-美國聯邦最高法院INS v. Chadha案評釋,權力分立新論,卷一,憲法結構與動態平衡,2005年。
    湯德宗,直接民主的制度設計,權力分立新論,卷一,憲法結構與動態平衡,三版,2005年。
    蘇彥圖,追求更公平合理的政治經費法制,台灣智庫,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122-155,2011年。
    (三) 期刊論文與研討會資料
    尤英夫,論政治廣告,全國律師,2卷3期,頁61-79,1998年3月。
    王宏恩,支出上限,公平競選-以09縣市長及10五都市長選舉為例,發表於2011台灣政治學會年會暨「辛亥百年與兩岸政治發展」學術研討會,2011年11月11日。
    王鼎銘,參選人競選支出效果及其外部性:單記非讓渡投票制下之黨內競爭性分析,人文及社會科學集刊,第23卷第3期,頁341-370,2011年9月。
    王鼎銘、范恩邦,立委參選人競選支出的選舉效果:Jacobson支出理論在台灣新選制下的再驗,台灣政治學刊,第14卷第2期,頁3-35,2010年12月。
    周振峰,公司捐贈與相關代理成本問題之研究,臺大法學論叢,第42卷第2期,頁259-315,2013年6月。
    官曉薇,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,臺北大學法學論叢,第98期,頁1-83,2016年6月。
    林明昕,基本國策之規範效力及其對社會正義之影響,臺大法學論叢,第45卷,特刊,頁1305-1358,2016年11月。
    林恆志、黃正一,「明顯而立即危險」原則之歷史背景、意義及運用,全國律師,8卷1期,頁42-66,2004年1月。
    法治斌,略論管制競選經費之捐助與花費,憲政時代,第6卷第3期,頁60-61,1981年1月。
    張訓嘉,有線電視之管理與新聞自由,全國律師,9卷5期,頁3-31,2005年5月。
    張福建,美國競選經費規範的憲政爭議—防腐、言論自由與政治平等,政治學報,第54期,頁1-26,2012年12月。
    張福建,捨人治而就法治:梅迪遜的憲政思想,全國律師,7卷5期,頁60-78,2003年5月。
    許家馨,什麼樣的民主?什麼樣的新聞自由?-從民主理論視野分析美國新聞自由法制,政大法學評論,第124期,頁1-71,2011年12月。
    郭銘松,美國公民共和主義法學的興起及其功能特徵,月旦法學,38期,頁97-109,1998年7月。
    湯德宗,簡介西德及美國有關競選經費的制度,憲政時代,第6卷第3期,頁80-87,1980年10月。
    黃銘輝,法治行政、正當程序與媒體所有權管制-借鏡美國管制經驗析論NCC對「旺旺入主三中」案處分之合法性與正當性,法學新論,17卷,頁105-149,2009年12月。
    黃錦堂,政治獻金法之釋義與評價,月旦法學,第111期,頁235-245,2004年8月。
    廖元豪,美國憲法學對臺灣憲法實務與理論之影響-以方法論為重心,月旦法學教室,第100期,頁51-69,2011年2月。
    廖元豪,有點兒違憲,又有點合憲,怎麼辦?—「適用上違憲」與「合憲解釋」的選擇,月旦法學教室,第72期,頁6-7,2008年10月。
    廖元豪,論共和主義的政治哲學對美國憲法思想基礎及實務的影響,憲政時代,20卷3期,頁80-97,1995年1月。
    劉定基,從美國法的觀點評司法院大法官釋字第六八九號解釋─以新聞自由、言論自由、隱私權的保障與衝突為中心,興大法學,第11期,頁195-236,2012年5月。
    劉靜怡,非常光碟的反常現象與尋常思考,人權雜誌,冬季號,頁43-48,2003年12月。
    劉靜怡,政治結社、競選活動相關經費規範與言論自由,月旦法學教室,第44期,頁32-41,2006年6月。
    劉靜怡,針對政治競選捐款設定上限,可乎?,臺灣法學雜誌,第253期, 頁81-86,2014年8月。
    劉靜怡,媒體所有權、觀點多元化與言論自由保障:美國法制的觀察,臺大法學論叢,40卷3期,頁1089-1173,2011年9月。
    賴祥蔚,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103-139,2011年11月。
    謝佳穎,論「明顯而立即危險原則」之現代價值與運用,憲政時代,第39卷第2期,頁79-112,2013年10月。
    蘇彥圖,職務行為的刑法範疇,與政治貪腐的平庸,刑事法與憲法的對話-許前大法官玉秀教授六秩祝壽論文集,頁523-543,2017年3月。
    (四) 學位論文
    王郁茹,論國會新制下之政治資金法制改革,臺灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文,2008年1月。
    林昱廷,「非常報導」光碟議題建構與新聞框架分析—以中時、自由、聯合報為例,國立臺灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所碩士論文,2004年6月。
    康素香,論美國管制法人選舉獨立支出的合憲性爭議,臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文,2015年8月。
    傅思叡,從言論自由觀點論限制公司競選言論之立法-從美國法出發,清華大學科技法律研究所碩士論文,2014年7月。
    廖元豪,競選經費管制策略之研究-自願公費選舉制度之提出,東吳大學法律學研究所碩士論文,1995年6月。
    蔡帛軒,競選支出對候選人得票率的影響:以台灣第八屆立委選舉為例,臺灣大學社會科學院經濟學系碩士論文,2013年6月。
    (五) 委託研究計畫
    陳運財主持,競選活動規制之研究,中央選舉委員委外辦理研究計畫,2002年11月。
    薄慶玖主持,競選經費問題之研究,行政院研究發展考核委員會研究報告, 1991年5月。
    顧慕晴主持,民主國家競選經費規範之研究,內政部委託研究報告,2012年12月。
    (六) 網路資源與報章資料
    王宏恩,重設競選支出上限趁現在,蘋果日報,2016年11月9日,URL: https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20161109/984823/. Accessed: 2018-1-15. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6wUUhX62n.)
    王宏恩,新世代觀點:選台北市長哪要花到八千萬?,風傳媒,URL: http://www.storm.mg/article/23299. Accessed: 2017-10-16.
    王柳敏,民族晚報,1986年6月29日,2版,收於立法報章雜誌資料專輯(第五輯)-選舉罷免法,1986年11月。
    北市府:查緝光碟 不是為了宋,自由時報,2003年11月8日,URL: http://old.ltn.com.tw/2003/new/nov/8/today-p7.htm. Accessed: 2017-09-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6tpumk6HG ).
    涉違選罷法 馬英九罰馬英九,聯合晚報,1999年3月9日,1版。
    連勝文競選廣告「三點全露」 幕僚:支持者贊助,ETNEWS新聞雲,https://www.ettoday.net/news/20140707/375766.htm. Accessed: 2017-10-16.
    喬俠青,一場選戰 燒掉多少廣告費用?,端傳媒,2015年9月24日,URL: https://theinitium.com/article/20150924-taiwan-electionad/. Accessed: 2017-10-17. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6uH8Nbikb.)
    馮建三,評述「非常光碟」事件,2003年人權報告書, 2004年7月。
    新聞局幫忙 《非常》就地合法,蘋果日報,2003年11月18日,URL: http://www.appledaily.com.tw/appledaily/article/headline/20031118/505464/%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E%E5%B1%80%E5%B9%AB%E5%BF%99%E3%80%8A%E9%9D%9E%E5%B8%B8%E3%80%8B%E5%B0%B1%E5%9C%B0%E5%90%88%E6%B3%95. Accessed: 2017-09-28. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6toROr5F1 ).
    劉靜怡,政治獻金的虛與實,蘋果日報,2015年10月2日,URL: http://www.appledaily.com.tw/appledaily/article/headline/20151002/36811468/. Accessed: 2017-10-18. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6uIdcB3J2. )
    選省長經費超支 陳定南誠實申報免罰,大紀元,2004年10月26日,URL: http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/4/10/26/n699787.htm. Accessed: 2017-10-16. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6uFnFriZz. )
    贊助連勝文廣告 段宜康:超過百萬已違法,蘋果日報,URL: http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20140709/430174/. Accessed: 2017-10-16. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6uFXJ9Pku )
    競選經費訂上限 立委:毫無意義,自由時報,2014年7月9日,URL: http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/794467. Accessed: 2017-10-17. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6uH7MRade ).
    二、 英文文獻
    (一) 專書
    Alexander, Herbert E., Financing Politics: Money Election And Political Reform (2d. ed., 1980).
    Baumgartner, Jody C. & Framcia, Peter L., Conventional Wisdom And American Elections: Exploding Myths, Exploring Misconceptions (2d. ed., 2010).
    Chemerinsky, Erwin, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (4th ed., 2011).
    Congressional Quarterly Inc., Dollar Politics (1982).
    Dworkin, Ronald, Justice in Robes (2006).
    Einstein, Mara, Media Diversity: Economics, Ownership, and the FCC (2004).
    Ely, John H., Democracy and Distrust (1980).
    Epstein, Richard A., The Classical Liberal Constitution (2014).
    Friedman, Lawrence M., American Law in the 20th Century (2002).
    Gordon, Stacy B., Campaign Contribution and Legislative Voting (2005).
    Hasen, Richard L., Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections (2016).
    Hasen, Richard L., The Supreme Court and Election Law: Judging Equality from Baker v. Carr to Bush v. Gore (2003).
    Issacharoff, Samuel, Karlan, Pamela S.& Pildes, Richard H., The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process (Foundation Press, 3d. ed., 2007).
    Kuhner, Timothy K., Capitalism v. Democracy: Money in Politics and the Free Market Constitution (2014).
    Lessig, Lawrence, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress- and a Plan to Stop It (2011).
    Mutch, Robert E., Buying the Vote: A History of Campaign Finance Reform (2014).
    Mutch, Robert E., Campaign, Congress, and Courts: The Making of Federal Campaign Finance Law (1988).
    Neuborne, Burt, Campaign Finance Reform & The Constitution: A Critical Look At Buckley v. Valeo (1998).
    Overaker, Loise, Money in Elections (Arno Press 1974) (1932).
    Post, Robert C., Citizens Divided: Campaign Finance Reform and the Constitution (2014).
    Sabato, Larry J. & Ernst, Howard R., Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Election (2007).
    Samples, John, The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform (2006).
    Sandel, Michael J., What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets (2012).
    Smith, Bradley A., Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform (2003).
    Stevens, John Paul, Six Amendments (2014).
    Strauss, David A., The Living Constitution (2010).
    Sunstein, Cass R., Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech (1995).
    Teachout, Zephyr, Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s Snuff Box to Citizens United (2014).
    Tokaji, Daniel P. &Strause, Renata E. B., The New Soft Money: Outside Spending in Congressional Elections (2014).
    Tribe, Laurence & Matz, Joshua, Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and The Constitution (2014).
    Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman & Brady, Henry E., Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics (1995).
    (二) 專書論文
    Blasi, Vicent, Free Speech and Good Character, in Eternally Vigilant: Free Speech in Modern Era (Lee C. Bollinger & Geoffrey R. Stone eds., 2002).
    Briffault, Richard, On Dejudicializing American Campaign Finance Law, in Money, Politics, And The Constitution 173 (Monica Youn ed., 2011).
    Horwitz, Robert B., On Media Concentration and the Diversity Question, in Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning and Metrics (Philip M. Napoli eds., 2007).
    Issacharoff, Samuel, On Political Corruption, in Money, Politics, and the Constitution: Beyond Citizens United (Monica Youn ed., 2011).
    Jacobson, Gary C., Measuring Spending Effects in U.S. House Elections, in Capturing Campaign Effects (Henry E. Brady & Richard Johnston eds., 2006).
    Nassmacher, Karl-Heinz, Comparing Party and Campaign Finance in Western Democracies, in Campaign and Party Finance in North America and Western Europe (Arthur B. Gunlicks ed., 1993).
    Post, Robert, Campaign Finance Regulation and First Amendment Fundamentals, in Money, Politics, and the Constitution: Beyond Citizens United (Monica Youn ed., 2011).
    Reagan, Milton C., JR., Corporate Speech and Civic Virtue, in Debating Democracy’s Discontent (Anita L. Allen & Milton C. Regan Jr. eds., 1998).
    Youn, Monica, First Amendment Fault Lines and the Citizens United Decision, in Money, Politics, and the Constitution: Beyond Citizens United (Monica Youn ed., 2011).
    (三) 期刊論文
    Abramowitz, Alan I., Explaining Senate Election Outcomes, 82 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 385 (1988).
    Adkins, Randall E. & Dowdle, Andrew J., The Money Primary: What Influences the Outcome of Pre-Primary Presidential Nomination Fundraising?, 32 Presidential Studies Quarterly 256 (2002).
    An, Soontae, Jin, Hyun Seung & Pfau, Michael, The Effects of Issue Advocacy Advertising on Voters' Candidate Issue Knowledge and Turnout, 83 Journalism & Mass Comm. Q. 7 (2006).
    Baker, Edwin C., Media Concentration: Giving Up on Democracy, 54 Fla. L. Rev. 839 (2002).
    Balkin, Jack M., Some Realism about Pluralism: Legal Realist Approaches to the First Amendment, 1990 Duke L. J. 375 (1990).
    Benoit, Kenneth & Marsh, Michael, The Campaign Value of Incumbency: A New Solution to the Puzzle of Less Effective Incumbent Spending, 52 Ami. J. Pol. Sci. 874 (2008).
    Breyer, Stephen, Our Democratic Constitution, 77 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 245, 252 (2002);
    Briffault, Richard, The Future of Reform: Campaign Finance After the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 34 Ariz. St. L. J. 1179 (2002).
    Burke, Debra, Twenty Years After the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974: Look Who’s Running Now, 99 Dick. L. Rev. 357 (1995).
    Burke, Thomas F., The Concept of Corruption in Campaign Finance Law, 14 Const. Comment. 127 (1997).
    Cain, Bruce E., Moralism and Realism in Campaign Finance Reform, 1995 U. Chi. Legal F. 111 (1995).
    Chemerinsky, Erwin, Not A Free Speech Court, 53 Ariz. L. Rev. 723 (2011).
    Ciepley, David, Beyond Public and Private: Toward a Political Theory of the Corporation, 107 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 139 (2013).
    Coleman, John J. & Manna, Paul E., Congressional Campaign Spending and the Quality of Democracy, 62 J. Pol. 757 (2000).
    Comment, Regulation of Labor's Political Contributions and Expenditures: The British and American Experience, 19 U. CHI. L. Rev. 371 (1952).
    Ely, John Hart, Flag Desecration: A Case Study in the Roles of Categorization and Balancing in First Amendment Analysis, 88 Harv. L. Rev. 1482 (1975).
    Engstrom, Richard N. & Kenny, Christopher, The Effects of Independent Expenditures in Senate Elections, 55 Pol. Res. Q. 885 (2002).
    Erikson, Robert S. & Palfrey, Thomas R., Equilibria in Campaign Spending Games: Theory and Data, 94 Ami. Pol. Sci. Rev. 595 (2000).
    Eule, Julian N., Promoting Speaker Diversity: Austin and Metro Broadcasting, 1990 Sup. Ct. Rev. 105 (1990).
    Farber, Daniel A. & Frickey, Philip P., The Jurisprudence of Public Choice, 65 Tex. L. Rev. 873 (1987).
    Freedman, Paul, Franz, Michael & Goldstein, Kenneth, Campaign Advertising and Democratic Citizenship, 48 Ami. J. Pol. Sci. 723 (2004).
    Gerber, Alan, Estimating the Effect of Campaign Spending on Senate Election Outcomes Using Instrumental Variables, 92 Ami. Pol. Sci. Rev. 401 (1998).
    Green, Donald P. & Krasno, Jonathan S., Rebuttal to Jacobson’s “New Evidence for Old Arguments”, 34 Am. J. Pol. Sci. 363 (1990).
    Green, Donald P. & Krasno, Jonathan S., Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Re-estimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections, 32 Am. J. Pol. Sci. 884 (1988).
    Greenawalt, Kent, Free Speech Justifications, 89 Colum. L. Rev. 119 (1989).
    Hasen, Richard L., Election Law’s Path in the Roberts Court’s First Decade: A Sharp Right Turn but with Speed Bumps and Surprising Twists, 68 Stan. L. Rev. 1597 (2016).
    Hatch, Standley N., Federal Regulation of Union Political Expenditures: New Wine in Old Bottles, 1977 BYU L. Rev. 99 (1977).
    Hayward, Allison R., Justice Breyer’s Party, 12 Nexus 119 (2007).
    Hellman, Deborah, Resurrecting the Neglected Liberty of Self-Government, 164 U. Pa. L. Rev. Online 233 (2016).
    Hellman, Deborah, Defining Corruption and Constitutionalizing Democracy, 111 Mich. L. Rev. 1385 (2013).
    Hellman, Deborah, Money Talks but It Isn’t Speech, 95 Minn. L. Rev. 953 (2011).
    Issacharoff, Samuel & Karlan, Pamela S., The Hydraulics of Campaign Finance Reform, 77 Tex. L. Rev. 1705 (1999).
    Jacobson, Gary C., Campaign Spending Effects in U.S. Senate Elections: Evidence from the National Annenberg Election Survey, 25 Electoral Studies 195 (2006).
    Jacobson, Gary C., The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections, 72 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 469 (1978).
    Jacobson, Gary C., The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments, 34 Am. J. Pol. Sci. 334 (1990).
    Kagan, Elena, Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine, 63 Chi. L. Rev. 413 (1996).
    Kaldahl, Karen Griffin, A Short History of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, 71 Miss. L.J. 275 (2001).
    Katz, Ellen D., Election Law’s Lochnerian Turn, 94 B. U. L. Rev. 697 (2014).
    Lahav, Pnina, Holmes and Brandeis: Libertarian and Republican Justifications for Free Speech, 4 J. L. & Pol. 451 (1988).
    Lessig, Lawrence, Corrupt and Unequal, Both, 84 Fordham L. Rev. 445 (2015).
    Levinson, Jessica A., The Original Sin of Campaign Finance Law: Why Buckley v. Valeo is Wrong, 47 U. Rich. L. Rev. 881 (2013).
    Lowenstein, Daniel H., Political Bribery and the Intermediate Theory of Politics, 32 UCLA L. Rev. 784 (1985).
    Lusk, Louis B., The Present Status of the Clear and Present Danger Test--A Brief History and Some Observations, 45 Ky. L.J. 576 (1957).
    Michelman, Frank I., Law’s Republic, 97 Yale L. J. 1493 (1988).
    Michelman, Frank I., Political Truth and the Rule of Law, 8 Tel Aviv U. Stud. L. 281 (1988).
    Moon, Woojin, The Paradox of Less Effective Incumbent Spending: Theory and Tests, 36 Brit. J. Pol. Sci. 705 (2006).
    Napoli, Philip M., Deconstructing the Diversity Principle, 49 J. Comm. 7 (1999).
    Neuborne, Burt, Is Money Different?, 77 Tex. L. Rev. 1609 (1999).
    Neuborne, Burt, Buckley’s Analytical Flaws, 6 J.L. & Pol’y 111 (1997-1998).
    Note, Statutory Regulation of Political Funds, 66 Harv. L. Rev. 1259 (1953).
    Ortiz, Daniel R., Water, Water Everywhere, 77 Tex. L. Rev. 1739 (1999).
    Overton, Spencer A., Mistaken Identity: Unveiling the Property Characteristics of Political Money, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 1235 (2000).
    Pasquale, Frank, Reclaiming Egalitarianism in the Political Theory of Campaign Finance Reform, 2008 U. Ill. L. Rev. 599 (2008).
    Raskin, Jamin & Bonifaz, John, The Constitutional Imperative and Practical Superiority of Democratically Financed Elections, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 1160 (1994).
    Ringhand, Lori, Defining Democracy: The Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Dilemma, 56 Hasting L. J. 77 (2004).
    Smidt, Corwin & Christenson, Dino, More Bang for the Buck: Campaign Spending and Fundraising Success, 40 American Politics Research 949 (2012).
    Sorauf, Frank J., Politics, Experience, and the First Amendment: The Case of Campaign Finance, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 1348 (1994).
    Stone, Geoffrey R., Content-Neutral Restrictions, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 46 (1987).
    Strauss, David A., Corruption, Equality, and Campaign Finance Reform, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 1369 (1994).
    Sullivan, Kathleen M., Two Concepts of Freedom of Speech, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 143 (2010).
    Sullivan, Kathleen M., Against Campaign Finance Reform, 1998 Utah L. Rev. 311 (1998).
    Sullivan, Kathleen M., Political Money and Freedom of Speech, 30 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 663 (1997).
    Sunstein, Cass R., Beyond the Republican Revival, 97 Yale L. J. 1539 (1988).
    Sunstein, Cass R., Lochner’s Legacy, 87 Colum. L. Rev. 873 (1987).
    Sunstein, Cass R., Interest Groups in American Public Law, 38 Stan. L. Rev. 29 (1985).
    Teachout, Zephyr, The Anti-Corruption Principle, 94 Cornell L. Rev. 341 (2009).
    Urofsky, Melvin I., Campaign Finance Reform Before 1971, 1 Alb. Gov’t Rev. 1 (2008).
    Ushkow, Michael J., Judicial Supervision of Campaign Information: A Proposal to Stop the Dangerous Erosion of Madison's Design for Actual Representation, 34 Hofstra L. Rev. 263 (2005).
    Volokh, Eugene, Why Buckley v. Valeo Is Basically Right, 34 ARIZ. ST. L. J. 1095 (2002).
    Volokh, Eugene, Freedom of Speech and Speech About Political Candidates: The Unintended Consequences of Three Proposals, 24 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 47 (2000).
    Weiland, Morgan N., Expanding the Periphery and Threatening the Core: The Ascendant Libertarian Speech Tradition, 69 Stan. L. Rev. 1389 (2017).
    Winter, Ralph K., The History and Theory of Buckley v. Valeo, 6 J. L. & Pol’y 93 (1997-1998).
    Wright, Skelly, Politics and the Constitution: Is Money Speech?, 85 Yale L. J. 1001 (1976).
    (四) 國會研究資料
    Garrett, Sam R., CRS Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress (2016).
    Whitaker, Paige L., CRS Report RL30669, The Constitutionality of Campaign Finance Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo and Its Supreme Court Progeny (2008).
    (五) 網路資源
    Center for Responsive Politics, URL: http://www.opensecrets.org.
    Hasen, Richard L., The Nine Lives of Buckley v. Valeo, 3-8 (April 20, 2010). First Amendment Stories, (Richard W. Garnett, Andrew Koppelman, eds., Foundation Press, 2010) ; Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2010-15. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1593253.
    Spaulding, Stephen, The Lessons and Legacy of a Watergate Baby, The Huffington Post (Apr. 4, 2016, 11:49 AM, Updated Apr. 24, 2017), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-spaulding/the-lessons-and-legacy-of_b_9765174.html. Accessed: 2017-05-28. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6qnVLpKKd).
    Zelizer, Julian, Learn from the “Watergate Babies”, CNN.com (Feb. 10, 2014, 1:10 PM), http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/10/opinion/zelizer-watergate-babies/. Accessed: 2017-05-28. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6qnXcNdyo).
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律學系
    102651016
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1026510161
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[法律學系] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 大小格式瀏覽次數
    016101.pdf2663KbAdobe PDF0檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋