| 摘要: | 憲法保障人民有請願及訴願之權，人民接觸民意代表或決策官員是天經地義之事；而民代與官員為求連任及了解民瘼，也必須主動與民眾作經常性的接觸。但進行接觸時民代與官員當然以可能影響他們仕途的個人或團體為優先，這些少數的個人或團體因此取得了政策的真正影響力，使「票票等值」或「人民頭家」的民主理想，淪為虛幻的口號。兩難的是，這些享有豐厚資源的個人或團體也是「人民」，如果要對他們與官員的接觸進行規範，將不可避免的傷害到人民的陳情請願權與言論自由，甚至可能助長決策者的濫權專擅，對民主實踐反而造成傷害。面對此一兩難的課題，民主國家多對政治獻金加以限制，避免政策的遊說不會等同於實質的行賄。但如美國、加拿大與我國，則認為競選經費與公職倫理的限制並不充分，國家仍然應該致力規範遊說行為。這些國家所採取的策略主要是透過立法規定遊說行為必須公開透明，使得選民在投票時，能將這些互動納入選擇考量。尤其，美國法界向來堅持，規定競選經費上限為對言論自由的實質壓制，要避免少數人以政治獻金取得較大的影響力，便強調資訊透明，讓候選人的立場傾向在投票前無所遁形以為制衡。但所謂的資訊透明，實際上也只是對遊說者或利益團體要求事先的登記。但經驗證實，由於遊說活動的定義十分廣泛而模糊，這些國家的遊說管理法均無可避免的必須不斷的修正。我國在2007年8月8日制定公布《遊說法》，並訂於一年後實施，正式啟動我國建立遊說規範制度之新頁。問世較晚的我國《遊說法》照理應較其他民主國家的立法更為完備，但誠如前文所述，遊說主客體與活動內涵的曖昧性，已使得法律的執行能力，必須仰賴其他社會環境或文化歷史因素。故而，他國的經驗，對後發的我國，並不必然可以完全抄襲。有鑑於此，立法院在三讀通過《遊說法》時，便曾作成附帶決議，主張在該法施行後半年，必須針對其執行成效進行檢討，以供修法之參考。本研究便希望對法的實施狀況，進行廣泛性與比較性的研究，以提供決策單位與立法機關的修法參考。
The right to petition is the basic right guaranteed by democratic constitution. To policy makers, such a contact is also indispensable, because it helps decision makers understand the needs of society. Nevertheless, the decision makers in a democratic society normally engage in electoral campaigns. Considering their campaign needs and their limitations with time and space, they must be selective in choosing the people to meet. As such, some people with resources appear more influential in having the decision makers’ ear, which ridicules the democratic principle of “one man one vote” or “people’s sovereignty” by creating an unequal society that men with more resources actually control policy making process. Unfortunately, to control the equal access would inevitably undermine people’s right of petition. To solve the dilemma, U.S., Canada, and Taiwan applies Lobbying Law to restrict lobbyist activities. To avoid improperly restricting people’s right for petition or freedom of expression, the Lobbying Law mainly focuses on making the lobbyist activities more transparent, in order to let the electorates know who has been trying to influence policies before they cast their votes. Unfortunately, “lobbying” has a very vague definition and scope, which makes the enforcement of the law difficult, if not impossible. Thus, the Lobbying Law in U.S. and Canada has been experienced many revisions in the past ten to twenty years since the introduction of the legal regulation. Among the three countries, Taiwan is the latest one to introduce the legal regulation, which passed the law on August 8, 2007. Realizing the difficulty of enforcing the law, the Legislative Yuan resolved that the government must conduct a serious review on the Law after its enforcement for six months. The conclusion of the review will be used as a foundation for further revision of the Law. This research is designed to conduct a comparative study of the Lobbying Law of the above mentioned three countries. With comparative study, it is hoped that the hidden problems of Taiwan’s Lobbying Law can be highlighted for further revision. |
