본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

미국 연방선거법상 기업의 정치적 독립지출허용의 의미와 시사점 -Citizens United v. FEC 판례를 중심으로-

Meanings and Implications of Corporate’s Political Independent Spendings in the U.S. Fedeal Election Law: Citizens United v. FEC

1

조회

0

다운로드

10

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

The American election law recognized the freedom of election campaigns broadly, but legislated FECA and BCPA additionally to secure election justice after undergoing political events including the Watergate Affair(1972) etc. However, there almost never be regulations of political activities besides laws and regulations for advertisement including promoting materials, but there are regulations related to contribution, expenditure and accounting report of election expenses. In 2010, as for Citizens United v. FEC Judgment disclosing the violation of election law which let companies not pay expenses of political advertisement, scholars who argued the importance of securing election justice gave contrary opinions against the judgment. On the other hand, Korea has strictly regulated election campaigns and political fund system according to the principle of the constitution and the public offices election law securing justice with the freedom of election. However, recently as request for political participation followed by development of new means of communication has been increased with 2012 presidential election and national assembly member election ahead, there have been discussions to magnify freedom. And according to introduction of overseas election, request for security of justice is being increased. Democratic countries in the 21st century have other principles and historical backgrounds, but it is their main theme of election law to find harmony between the principles of freedom and justice. This article has focused on the doctrine of avoiding decisions disposing constitutional issues traditionally established by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court has been reluctantly deciding cases including the constitutional issues.

Abstract

The American election law recognized the freedom of election campaigns broadly, but legislated FECA and BCPA additionally to secure election justice after undergoing political events including the Watergate Affair(1972) etc. However, there almost never be regulations of political activities besides laws and regulations for advertisement including promoting materials, but there are regulations related to contribution, expenditure and accounting report of election expenses. In 2010, as for Citizens United v. FEC Judgment disclosing the violation of election law which let companies not pay expenses of political advertisement, scholars who argued the importance of securing election justice gave contrary opinions against the judgment. On the other hand, Korea has strictly regulated election campaigns and political fund system according to the principle of the constitution and the public offices election law securing justice with the freedom of election. However, recently as request for political participation followed by development of new means of communication has been increased with 2012 presidential election and national assembly member election ahead, there have been discussions to magnify freedom. And according to introduction of overseas election, request for security of justice is being increased. Democratic countries in the 21st century have other principles and historical backgrounds, but it is their main theme of election law to find harmony between the principles of freedom and justice. This article has focused on the doctrine of avoiding decisions disposing constitutional issues traditionally established by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court has been reluctantly deciding cases including the constitutional issues.

참고문헌 (29)

  1. 김영훈, "연방대법원, 기업에 정치광고의 자유 부여", 신문과 방송 (2010)
  2. 김학성, "헌법학원론" (2011), 박영사
  3. 기업의 소유지배규조와 정부의 역할, "김화진", SIRFE, ~, pp.SIRFE Working Paper 10-A01 (2010)
  4. 권영설, "미국헌법의 사상적 및 역사적 기초", 미국헌법연구, 10 (1999)
  5. 권영성, "헌법학원론" (2011), 법문사
  6. 성낙인, "헌법학 제9판" (2009), 법문사
  7. 임지봉, "美國憲法上의 政治的 表現의 自由와 選擧運動의 規制", 미국헌법연구, 21(2), pp.87~117 (2010), 미국헌법학회
  8. 장영진, "미국법", 법률문화원, ~ (2008)
  9. 정영철, "기업의 정치적 표현과 언론의 자유 ― 최근 미국 연방대법원 판결이 한국에 주는 시사점 ―", 언론과 법, 9(2), pp.195~235 (2010), (사)한국언론법학회
  10. 대전광역시 선거관리위원회, "미국의 정치제도-정치자금 및 대통령선거 제도를 중심으로" (2010)
  11. 중앙선거관리위원회, "미국 연방선거법", ~ (2010)
  12. 중앙선거관리위원회, , 정치관계법 개정 토론회 자료집 (2011)
  13. 한인유권자센터, "미국 선거자금 제도 연구" (2010)
  14. Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issue of Soft Money, "CRS", The Library of Congress, ~ (2002)
  15. The Constitutionality of Campaign Finance Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo and Its Supreme Court Progeny, "CRS", Congressional Research Service, ~ (2008)
  16. Legislative Options After Citizens United v. FRC: Constitutional and Legal Issues, "CRS", Congressional Research Service, ~ (2010)
  17. The Constitutionality of Campaign Finance Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo and Its Supreme Court Progeny, "CRS", Congressional Research Service, ~ (2008)
  18. Joseph Cummins, "Anything for a Vote (Trade Paperback, 2007)", ~ (2007)
  19. "법령소개" (2011), 미국정부간행물실[URL]
  20. "판례검색" (2011), 미국 연방대법원[URL]
  21. "PAC 소개" (2011), 미국 연방선거위원회[URL]
  22. "매칭펀드 소개" (2011), 미국 연방선거위원회[URL]
  23. "미국 연방선거지원위원회" (2011)[URL]
  24. "기록자료" (2011), 선거정치블로그[URL]
  25. "워터게이트 정보" (2011)[URL]
  26. "조직안내" (2011)[URL]
  27. "Important Dates: Federal Campaign Finance Legislation" (2011)[URL]
  28. "위키피디아 백과사전" (2011)[URL]
  29. 연합뉴스, "3선성공 블룸버그 뉴욕시장 취임", ~ (2010)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (18건)