표현의 자유 확장을 통한 선거자금규제의 변화

Regarding campaign finance regulation, countries around the world exhibit distinct approaches based on their unique political culture, traditions, history, and systems, much like their political institutions. Particularly, the adoption of spending limits on campaign funds varies among nations based on their direction toward ensuring fair elections. Among these, the Unoted States, despite sharing a similar political system with South Korea—a presidential system and the election of legislators through single-member districts—holds a diametrically opposed philosophy regarding campaign finance, a form of political free speech. Therefore, in the current context where reflection on high-cost politics and economic structures, along with discussions on alternatives, are rapidly spreading following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on campaign finance regulation, we aim to study the U.S. as a reference point. This is to expand freedom of political expression while simultaneously strengthening public oversight of campaign funds and enhancing their transparency and fairness. Unlike the South Korean legal system, which distinguishes between the legal concepts of “political funds” and “election expenses,” “political funds” in the U.S. is used synonymously with “campaign funds.” This stems from the political reality that, in America, politics is synonymous with elections. Unlike the class-based mass parties of Europe, political parties in the U.S. function primarily as organizations for a candidate's campaign, and elections are candidate-centered rather than party-centered. Consequently, individual campaigns are highly significant and competitive, leading to a high-cost structure where methods such as opinion polling and television advertising are heavily utilized. Under the First Amendment, the U.S. has historically provided consistent and robust protection for acts or behaviors that constitute “symbolic expression.” Given this long history, contributing funds to a political candidate is considered a protected expression of political opinion. This is because the act of providing campaign funds is a means of conveying support and sharing views regarding a candidate. From the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo to the 2022 ruling in FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, the U.S. Supreme Court has expanded the freedom of expression under the First Amendment, further loosening campaign finance regulations. Consequently, the deregulation of freedom of expression since the Buckley decision has led to what is now called a “war of money,” with spending reaching record highs in every election cycle. In response, the U.S. ensures campaign finance transparency through methods other than the strict control of income and expenditure, which inevitably accompanies the expansion of political freedom of expression. In contrast to the U.S., South Korea currently operates under a comprehensive state-funded election system. While there have been gradual shifts, the Korean system still prioritizes “electoral fairness” above all else. Therefore, beyond legal improvements to campaign finance regulations, there is a need for broader changes in political culture to enhance diversity within the electoral process.