政治性言論一向被認為具備言論自由所欲追求之主要價值，競選言論更屬民主政治中不可或缺的言論類型。公司身為近代社會中活躍角色，其參與政治的權利近年來引發不少憲法爭議。究竟公司得否享有言論自由之保障？公司所發出的競選言論應享有何種憲法保障？競選言論是否會因表意者身分為公司而失去保障？

本文從美國聯邦最高法院對公司政治言論之重要判決出發，繼而討論言論自由之價值與公司之本質以探討公司之政治言論之價值。最後析論各種限制公司競選言論支出之措施，是否合於憲法上對於言論自由之保障，以及限制之正當性。

本文以為公司之競選言論有別於自然人之同等言論，應屬價值較低之言論類型，端視規範目的不同而施以不同審查標準：倘若政府規制目的乃為矯正市場失靈，維護民主程序或健全公司治理，即應採中度審查標準；否則，仍應以嚴格審查標準檢視之。

參考文獻
一、 中文資料
（一） 專書
1. 王文宇，公司法論，元照出版公司，2008年9月4版。
2. 李惠宗，憲法要義，元照出版公司，2009年5版。
3. 林子儀，言論自由與新聞自由，月旦出版公司，1993年4月。
4. 林子儀等合著，載：台灣憲法之縱剖橫切，元照出版公司，2002年12月。
5. 吳庚，行政法之理論與實用，2007年9月10版。
6. 約翰彌爾著，郭志嵩譯，論自由，城邦出版公司，2004年。

（二） 期刊
1. 吳重禮&黃琦君，必要之惡？從McCain-Feingold法案看政治行動委員會的功能與影響，政治科學論叢，第15期，頁45-61，2001年12月。
2. 劉連煜，公司捐贈之法律問題，月旦法學雜誌，第8期，頁87-94， 1995年12月。
3. 劉靜怡，政治結社、競選活動相關經費之規範與言論自由，月旦法學教室，第44期，頁32-41，2006年。
4. 賴祥蔚，商業言論與憲法的言論自由保障，台灣政治學刊，第14卷第1期，頁159-199。

（三） 學位論文
1. 吳宗謀，再訪法人論爭－一個概念的考掘，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士，2004年7月。
 
二、 外文資料
（一） 判決
1. Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).
2. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977).
3. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990).
4. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
5. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).
6. Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010).
7. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic Nat. Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 122 (1973).
8. Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 204 Mich. 459, 170 N.W. 668 (1919).
9. Federal Election Com'n v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986).
10. Federal Election Comm'n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007).
11. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978).
12. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965).
13. McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 124 S.Ct. 619 (2003).
14. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
15. Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, 539 U.S. 654 (2003).
16. PG&E v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 475 U. S. 1 (1986).
17. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972).
18. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518(1819).
19. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
20. Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S.748 (1976).
21. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).

（二） 專書
1. Baker, C. Edwin, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech, Oxford University Press (1989).
2. Meiklejohn, Alexander, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government, Harper & Brothers (1948).
3. Stone, Geoffrey R., Seidman, Louis M., Sunstein, Cass R., Tushnet, Mark V., and Karlan, Pamela S., The First Amendment, Aspen (3rd ed., 2008).
4. Volokh, Eugene, The First Amendment and Related Statutes, Foundation Press (3rd ed., 2008).

（三） 專書論文
1. French, Peter A., The Corporation as a Moral Person, in Group Rights 5-13, Ashgate (Peter Jones ed., 2009).

（四） 期刊論文
1. Avi-Yonah, Reuven S,. Citizens United and the Corporate Form, 2010 Wis. L. Rev. 999-1047 (2011).
2. Baker, C. Edwin, Scope of the First Amendment Freedom of Speech, 25 U.C.L.A. L. Rev 964-1040 (1978).
3. Baker, C. Edwin, Realizing Self-realization: Corporate Political Expenditures And Redish’s the Value of Free Speech, 130 U. Pa. L. Rev. 646-677 (1982).
4. Bebchuk, Lucian A. & Jackson, Robert J. Jr., Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending, 101 Geo. L.J. 923-927 (2013).
5. Benson, Jocelyn, Saving Democracy: A Blueprint for Reform in the Post-Citizens United Era, 40 FDMULJ 723-771 (2012).
6. Berger, Linda L., What Is the Sound of a Corporation Speaking? How the Cognitive Theory of Metaphor Can Help Lawyers Shape the Law, 2 J. Ass'n Legal Writing Directors 169-208 (2004).
7. Bork, Natural Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 Ind. L. J. 1-35 (1971).
8. Bork, Robert H., Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 Ind. L.J. 1-35 (1971).
9. Bratton, William W. Jr., The “Nexus of Contracts” Corporation: A Critical Appraisal, 74 Cornell L. Rev. 407-465 (1989).
10. Breyer, Stephen, Our Democratic Constitution, 77 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 245-272 (2002).
11. Colombo, Ronald J., The Corporation as a Tocquevillian Association, 85 Temp. L. Rev. 1-47 (2012).
12. Crosland, E. Stewart, Failed Rescue: Why Davis v. FEC Signals the End to Effective Clean Elections, 66 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1265-1314 (2009).
13. Dibadj, Reza, Citizens United as Corporate Law Narrative, 16 Nexus: Chap. J. L. & Pol'y 39-57 (2011).
14. Dodd, E. Merrick Jr., For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees?, 45 Harv. L. Rev. 1145-1163(1932).
15. Eberhardt, Charles N., Integrating the Right of Association with the Bellotti Right to Hear—Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 72 Cornell L. Rev. 159-194 (1986).
16. Ellis, Atiba R., Citizens United and Tired Personhood, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 717-749 (2011).
17. Emerson, Thomas I., Toward A General Theory of the First Amendment, 72 Yale L.J. 877-956 (1963).
18. Epstein, Richard A., Citizens United v. FEC: The Constitutional Right that Big Corporations Should Have But Do Not Want, 34 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 639-661 (2011).
19. Greenwood, Daniel J.H., Essential Speech: Why Corporate Speech is Not Free, 83 Iowa L. Rev. 995-1070 (1998).
20. Hall, Adam P., Regulating Corporate “Speech” in Public Elections, 39 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 1313-1342 (1988).
21. Ingber, Stanley, The Marketplace of Ideas: A Legitimizing Myth, 1984 Duke L.J. 1-91 (1984).
22. Kairys, David, The Contradictory Messages of Rehnquist-Roberts Era Speech Law: Liberty and Justice for Some, 2013 U. Ill. L. Rev. 195-220 (2013).
23. Lansing, Paul & Sherman, Gerald M., The ‘Evolution’ of the Supreme Court’s Political Spending Doctrine: Restricting Corporate Contributions to Ballot Measure Campaigns After Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, California, 8 J. Corp. L. 79-110 (1982).
24. Meiklejohn, Alexander, The First Amendment Is an Absolute, 1976 Sup. Ct. Rev. 245-266 (1961).
25. Meyer, Joanna M., The Real Error in Citizens United, 69 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 2171-2231 (2012)
26. Millon, David, Theories of the Corporation, 1990 Duke L.J. 201-262 (1990).
27. Osterlind, Alex, Giving a Voice to the Inanimate: The Right of a Corporation to Political Free Speech, 76 Mo. L. Rev. 259-282 (2011).
28. Padfield, Stefan J., The Dodd-Frank Corporation: More Than a Nexus of Contracts, 114 W. Va. L. Rev 209-237 (2011).
29. Padfield, Stefan J., Rehabilitating Concession Theory, 66 Okla. L. Rev. 327-361 (2013).
30. Phillips, Michael J., Reappraising the Real Entity Theory of the Corporation, 21 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1061-1123 (1994).
31. Redish, Martin H., The Value Of Free Speech, 130 U. Pa. L. Rev. 591 (1982).
32. Ribstein, Larry E., Corporate Political Speech, 49 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 109-159 (1992).
33. Ribstein, Larry E., The First Amendment and Corporate Governance, 27 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 1019-1055 (2011).
34. Richards, David A. J., Free Speech And Obscenity Law: Toward A Moral Theory of The First Amendment, 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 45-91 (1974).
35. Ripken, Susanna Kim, Corporations are People Too: A Multi-Dimensional Approach to the Corporate Personhood, 15 Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L. 97-177 (2009).
36. Ripken, Susanna Kim, Corporate First Amendment Rights after Citizens United: An Analysis of the Popular Movement to End the Constitutional Personhood of Corporations, 14 U. Pa. J. Bus. L. 209-259 (2011).
37. Sepinwall, Amy J., Citizens United and the Ineluctable Question of Corporate Citizenship, 44 Conn. L. Rev. 575-615 (2012).
38. Shapiro, Ilya & McCarthy, Caitlyn W., So What if Corporation Aren’t People?, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev 701-716 (2011).
39. Sullivan, Kathleen M., Two Concepts of Freedom of Speech, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 143-177 (2010).
40. Tucker, Anne, Flawed Assumptions: A Corporate Law Analysis of Free Speech and Corporate Personhood in Citizens United, 61 Case W.RES. L.REV. 497-550 (2011).
41. Vega, Matt A., The First Amendment Lost in Translation: Preventing Foreign Influence in U.S. Elections After CITIZENS UNITED v. FEC, 44 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 951-1017 (2011).

（五） 網路資料
1. Larry E. Ribstein, Citizens United v, FEC: A Roundtable Discussion, FEDERALIST SOCIETY, THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY, http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/dbtid.38/default.asp . (last visited May 26, 2014).