정치자금법제에 대한 비교법적 검토와 그 시사점 : 헌법재판소 2015.12.23. 2013헌바168 결정에 대한 평석을 겸하여

Abstract

The amendment process of the Korean Political Fund Act can be regarded as the process of prohibiting or institutionalizing corporate donations to prevent canonical cohesion and, in some cases, strengthening the legal apparatus for transparency while fostering the channels for procuring political funds have. However, in spite of institutional improvement, the reality is that the noninstitutionalized forms of informal political funding are still being sourced, driving social and political waves. Moreover, in the situation that a corporation or a group can not donate funds to a supporter, and the support of a political party is prohibited, the damage caused by the prohibition is likely to be hit by a small party or a political newcomer. There is still a great need for improvement. The decision of the Supreme Court was based on the fact that the provisions of the Political Fund Act excluding political parties from the supporters of the supporters violate the freedom of political parties and the freedom of political expression of the people. And that there is no explicit stance on whether it is applicable or content neutral. However, it implies that the act of involving political funds is included in the protection domain of freedom of political expression. This paper examines the political funding system of the United States, Germany, France, Britain, and Japan in order to gain implications for the direction of the improvement of the political fund regulation system. It can be seen that the precautionary regulation on imports has generally been shifted toward strengthening the post - regulation on expenditures. The case of the Constitutional Court is also an extension of this direction. Regarding the direction of the reform of the political fund legislation, transparency in the process of income and expenditure should be ensured so that the party's decisionmaking process is not distorted by signatures with some powers. On the other hand, however, it is also important to note that the contributions of political funds to signatures are a form of exercise of fundamental rights of individuals and are constitutionally permitted and guaranteed. In order to satisfy such a double demand, it is necessary to bipolarize political party funds, to relax pre-emptive control, and to improve post-transparency control.