미국의 선거자금규제 판례와 표현의 자유 - 역사적 배경과 판례를 중심으로 -

In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the individual contribution limits, the disclosure and reporting provisions, and the public financing scheme of the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act. However, the Court invalidated the limitations on independent expenditures because they violate freedom of speech(Buckley v. Valeo). After forty years Buckley continues to be the main logic of jurisprudence in campaign finance regulations. There was huge controversy over the 5:4 decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, allowing corporate money in politics. In light of today's polarization and forever skyrocketing election costs, many scholars argue that we need a new approach in campaign finance jurisprudence to take into consideration the unique characteristic of election in democracy. Electoral integrity and freedom of speech are two pillars of self government. We need to look into how and why freedom of speech has gained such a preferred position in American history, and what the consequences are. It is through these reflections that we can attain a deeper understanding into the question of how to balance electoral integrity and freedom of speech in Korea.