정치자금 규제와 평가

최희경 ( Hee-kyung Choi ) 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2018 法學論集 Vol.23 No.1

정치자금은 정치인이나 정당이 정치활동을 하는데 필요한 일체의 경비를 말하며, 정치인이나 정당의 입장에서는 정치활동을 위하여 필요한 정치자금이 보다 쉽게 많이 조달될 수 있기를 바란다. 하지만 정치활동에는 다양한 이해관계가 충돌하고 이를 조정하여 정책결정이 내려져야 하므로 정치자금의 제공은 정치적 영향력을 증대시킬 수 있는 주요한 수단이 된다. 그리고 그러한 수단으로서의 재력을 가진 사람들만의 이익이 우선하고 존중되는 정치과정은 금권정치로 변질되며 정치적 부패를 가져오게 되므로 그 규제는 불가피한 것이다. 그렇지만 정치자금의 규제, 예컨대 정치자금을 제공할 수 있는 자나 모금이 허용되는 자에 대한 규제, 금액의 상하한의 설정 등은 평등의 문제를 제기하며 이는 정치적 영향력의 실질적 차이를 가져온다. 또한 정치자금 배분에 있어서의 불균형 역시 중요한 평등의 문제를 제기한다. 한편으로 정치자금 규제는 차별의 문제만이 아니라 이를 통한 국민의 정치적 표현의 자유를 보장하고 그 보장의 수준을 보여준다는 점에서 규제만이 전부가 아닌 것이다. 이에 본 논문은 우리나라 정치자금법에서 인정하고 있는 정치자금 중 정당이 외부로부터의 자금에 의존하는 기탁금, 후원금, 국고보조금을 중심으로 그 규제의 내용과 타당성을 살펴보고자 한다. 이를 위해 기탁금제도와 관련해서 지정기탁금제의 재도입 여부, 법인·단체의 정치자금 기부 허용 여부를 살펴본다. 또한 후원회를 구성할 수 있는 후원회 지정권자의 인정범위, 국고보조금 배분 기준 등의 적정성을 살펴본다. 우리나라의 경우 정치자금의 수입원은 다양화되었지만, 당비, 국고보조금, 후원금, 기탁금 등의 구체적 내용과 운영은 복잡하게 영향을 미치고 있으며, 전체적인 정치자금의 총액을 결정함에 있어서 각각의 정치자금이 미치는 영향력은 함께 고려되어져야 한다. Political funds mean any and all expenses required for politicians or political parties to engage in politics. From the viewpoint of politicians or political parties, they want much more political funds to be raised easily for their political activities. However, there are various conflicts of interests in political activities and adjustment has to be made for a policy decision and therefore, provision of political funds becomes an important means to increase political influence. Political process which only prefers and respects benefit of people with financial ability for such means will be spoiled to money politics and will bring political corruption and therefore, regulation is unavoidable. Nevertheless, regulation on political funds, e.g. regulation on funds provider or people who are allowed for fund-raising, or setting upper-limit or lower-limit amount, will bring up a problem of equality, which causes substantive difference of political influence. Unbalance in distribution of political funds also raises important problem of equality. Meantime, regulation is not everything because regulation on political funds not only is a problem of discrimination but also guarantees freedom of people’s political expression through political funds and shows level of the guarantee. Thus, this thesis assesses validity of regulation on political funds which are recognized in our Political Fund Law, i.e. party expenditure, donation, support payments, and government subsidies. With respect to donation system, it investigates whether reintroduction of designated donation system is implemented and whether a corporation or an organization is permitted to donate political funds. And, with respect to support payments system, it reviews; first, validity of regulation on appointor of individual supporters’ association and second, validity of abolition of party supporters’ association and recognition on party supporters’ association pursuant to decision of the Constitutional Court. Finally, with respect to government subsidies, it discusses necessity of government subsidies and adequacy of payment criteria.

정치자금에 대한 비교분석

고문현(Koh, Moon-Hyun) 한국토지공법학회 2013 土地公法硏究 Vol.61 No.-

한국과 일본 양국은 정치자금의 적정한 제공을 보장하고 정치자금의 투명성을 확보하기 위하여 후원회(한국) 또는 정치단체(일본)를 통하여 기부를 제공ㆍ수령하고 정치자금의 수입ㆍ지출내역을 공개하는 제도를 운용하고 있다. 공통점으로는 첫째, 기부금을 모금하는 창구로서 법으로 정한 모금단체(한국은 후원회, 일본은 정치단체)를 정하고 이를 통해 기부금이 모금되도록 하며, 둘째, 양국 모두 정치자금 모금의 투명성을 보장하기 위해 후원회, 정치단체가 법에서 정하는 바에 따라 그 수입과 지출을 회계장부에 기재ㆍ비치하게 하고, 매년 정치자금의 수입ㆍ지출을 선거관리위원회 등에서 보고받고 이를 공개하고 있다. 차이점으로는 첫째, 한국의 경우 정당의 기부금 모금을 금지하여 공직후보자를 중심으로 정치자금을 조달하도록 하는 반면에, 일본의 경우 정당이 정치자금 모금을 위한 정치자금단체를 지정하여 모금할 수 있게 하고 있다. 둘째, 한국의 경우 법인ㆍ단체의 후원금 기부가 원천적으로 금지되었으나, 일본의 경우 법인ㆍ단체의 정당에의 기부는 그 규모에 따라 정해진 금액 범위 안에서 허용된다. 셋째, 한국은 후원회가 모금할 수 있는 연간 모금한도를 제한하는 반면, 일본은 기부주체의 기부한도액 제한 외에 정치단체의 모금한도는 정하고 있지 않다. 넷째, 한국의 경우 선거관리위원회가 정치자금법 위반행위에 대하여 조사할 수 있는 권한이 부여된 반면, 일본은 이와 관련된 규정을 두고 있지 않다. 이상에서 살펴본 바와 같이 입헌주의와 법치주의가 상이한 한국과 일본의 정치적ㆍ문화적 특성에 따라 정치자금제도는 차이가 있지만, 양국 모두 정치자금의 투명성 유지가 정치부패를 막는 근간이라고 여기고 정치자금의 투명성을 확대하기 위한 조치를 취해가고 있다는 점은 매우 시사적이라 할 것이다. There is a system of opening of income and expense figures of political funds to the public so as to guarantee appropriate offering of political funds and to secure transparency of political funds in Japan and Korea. Japan and Korea have a lot in common in political fund law as follows. First, there is a statutory fundraising organization such as political organization of Japan and supporters association of Korea as a way to raise contributions. Second, there are a system of reporting of income and expense figures of political funds to the National Election Commission, a system of making an entry of income and expense figures of political funds in accounting records in accordance with political fund law and a system of opening of income and expense figures of political funds to the public in accordance with political fund law so as to guarantee appropriate offering of political funds and to secure transparency of political funds every year. There are differences between Japan and Korea in political fund law as follows. First, candidates for public office raise political funds because it is prohibited to raise contributions by a political party in Korea. On the other hand, it is allowed for a political party to designate a organization of political funds in order to raise political funds in Japan. Second, it is forbidden for a corporate body or organization to donate contributions in Korea. On the other hand, it is allowed for a corporate body or organization to donate contributions to a political party within settled amount according to scale in Japan. Third, there is an annual limit that supporters association can raise political funds in Korea. On the other hand, there is no annual limit to a political organization except for maximum limit to a contributor in Japan. Fourth, National Election Commission has a authority to investigate into a violation of the Political Fund Law in Korea. On the other hand, there is no provision related to a authority to investigate into a violation of the Political Fund Law in Japan. As seen above, there is a difference in Political Fund System according to level of rule of law and constitutionalism between Japan and Korea. And yet, it is very meaningful that each country takes a measure to expand transparency of political funds as a basis for preventing political corruption.

정치후원금 기부문화 활성화를 위한 제도 및 세제의 개선방안 연구

김수성,고윤성 중앙선거관리위원회 2019 『選擧硏究』 Vol.1 No.10

This study is intended to explore improvements of tax and system support for the revitalization of the culture of political fund donations. In this study, we would argue that: First, the government should provide tax deductions for political funds donated by immediate family members and their dependents. It is also required to raise the deduction rate of political fund contributions along with the ordinary donation cases. In addition, it is required to impose strict additional taxes on illegal political funds and strengthen the penalty rules to fundamentally block the collection of illegal political funds. Moreover, making a possible deduction for those political donations that were made abroad is essential. In addition to those suggested requirements above, the government is required to find ways to provide institutional support for political funds. the expansion of possible scope for the donors of political funds and the right to designate sponsors’ associations are necessary. the payment method of state subsidies should be improved. This study was intended to provide a platform for the voluntary recruitment of political funds and the recruitment of more political funds through the extensive tax support for the collection of political funds that had been in the doldrums. The purpose of this study is to examine the problems of the current tax support system for political donations and to provide a platform for political fundraising to be established as an advanced system through the need to expand tax support and the improvement of recruitment methods. 본 연구는 정치후원금의 기부문화 활성화를 위한 세제 및 제도의 지원에 관한 개선안을 모색해보고자 하였다. 본 연구에서는 다음과 같이 주장하고자 한다. 우선, 본인의 정치자금 기부금이외에 직계존속 및 부양가족이 기부한 정치자금에 대하여도 세액공제를 하여야 한다. 또한, 일반적인 기부금과 같이 정치자금 기부금의 공제율을 상향조정할 필요가 있다. 더불어 불법으로수수한 정치자금에 대하여 엄격한 가산세를 부과할 필요가 있다. 이밖에, 고액 ․ 상습체납자에대하여 정치자금 기부를 거부하거나 제한하는 규정을 마련하여 음성적인 정치자금의 유입을 차단하여야 한다. 이밖에 정치자금 후원에 대한 제도적인 지원방안을 모색할 필요가 있다. 정치자금 기부자의 가능 범위를 확대하고, 후원회 지정권자 또한 확대할 필요가 있으며, 국고보조금의지급방식을 개선하여야 한다. 본 연구는 침체되었던 정치자금 모집에 대한 대폭적인 세제지원을 통해 정치자금 모집이 원활히 이루어지고 더욱 많은 정치자금이 모집될 수 있는 발판을 제공하고자 하였다. 본 연구는 정치기부금에 대한 현행 조세지원제도의 문제점을 살펴보고 세제지원의 확대의 필요성과 모집방법의개선 등을 통하여 정치자금 모집이 선진화된 시스템으로 구축될 수 있는 발판을 제공하였다는점에서 연구의 의의가 있다

미국의 정치자금규제에 관한 헌법적 고찰

최희경 ( Hee Kyung Choi ) 세계헌법학회 한국학회 2012 世界憲法硏究 Vol.18 No.2

The election campaigns of the USA is proceeded centered on a candidate not on political party and each candidate needs big political funds. So, as these have been emphasized - big funds necessary for election campaign, risk of corruption caused by bribery for the sake of vote, necessity of delivering voice from persons who do not have much money, to national people, necessity of restriction on political funds related to election has been raised. But some assert that regarding to The First Amendment, restriction on campaign finance should be regarded as invasion on freedom of speech. Congress of the United States has strived for restriction on political funds related to election. Especially, through Federal Election Campaign Act(FECA) in 1971, wide reform was implemented. And through Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act(BCRA) in 2002, restriction was made on soft money and electioneering communication of corporation or legal body in the Federal election. And Maine, North Carolina, Arizona States etc. enacted Clean Elections Act to prevent corruption risk in the election through support of public fund. Accordingly, this study intended to investigate centered on law for political funds restriction and judgement of the U.S. Supreme Court if expenditure and contribution of political funds can be a form of speech protected by The First Amendment, and if so, how government can regulate such speech. To do this, the study investigated matter of judicial review standards for restriction of political funds and validity for distinction between contribution and expenditure centered on Buckley v. Valeo which is most basic case in judging whether restriction of political funds violates constitution or not. And as important issues related to restriction of campaign fund, these were investigated focused on judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court - restriction on expenditure and contribution, expenditure restriction of corporation, matter of public fund support etc. Especially, this study explored problems of judgment in the Supreme Court that considers freedom of political speech as priority under system of Chief Justice, Roberts.

정치자금법상의 쟁점과 개선방안에 관한 고찰

김도협 대한변호사협회 2017 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.468

The democratic legitimacy of the electoral system has to be secured in order to achieve a true sovereignty of the people. The democratic legitimacy will only be made possible by a mutual and continuous consensus and compromise between the people as a sovereign and the political forces. A serious and progressive(positive) academic research for a successful consensus and compromise between them would be necessary. And it can be said that this is the ultimate reason and purpose of this study. Political funds are money that is provided for the political activities of political parties or politicians, which is an essential requirement for all political activities, including elections today. In this way, the ability to secure political funds in political and political activities will be directly related to the political influence of the political forces. Therefore, like most countries, we should also ensure transparency by ensuring the proper provision of political funds and by disclosing their income and expenditure. And political funding laws and institutions should be developed to contribute to the development of democratic politics by preventing corruption related to political funds. This study has considered that focusing on Support Payments, Deposits, Subsidies from National Treasury that can be improved upon in part considering in terms of realization of sovereignty of people even though the current Political Funds Act received positive evaluation with revisions. The result of this study finds that the more practical supplement of Support Payments, Deposits, Subsidies from National Treasury by legislative proceedings is required. 정치자금이란 정당이나 정치인의 정치적 활동을 위하여 제공되는 금전으로서 이는 오늘날 선거를 포함한 제반 정치활동에 있어서 필수적인 요건이라 할 수 있다. 따라서 이와 같이 볼 경우 정당 내지 정치활동에 있어서 정치자금의 확보 여부에 대한 능력은 곧 당해 정치세력의 정치적 영향력과 직결된다 할 것으로 이에 대한 적절한 법·제도적인 감시와 통제가 이루어지지 않는다면 결과적으로 정치자금의 수수와 관련한 부패가 만연할 수밖에 없을 것이며, 이는 곧 대의민주주의의 실현에도 심대한 악영향을 끼칠 수밖에 없을 것이다. 바로 이와 같은 이유에서 여타 대다수의 국가와 마찬가지로 우리 역시 정치자금의 적정한 제공을 보장하고 그 수입과 지출내역을 공개하여 투명성을 확보하며, 정치자금과 관련한 부정을 방지함으로써 민주정치의 건전한 발전에 기여함을 목적으로 그 동안 정치자금법·제를 발전시켜왔다고 할 수 있다. 따라서 이상의 사실을 전제하면서, 본 고찰에서는 정치자금과 관련한 기존의 선행연구를 기초로 하되, 선행연구에서 충분히 다루어지지 않았거나 현싯점에서 새롭게 조명해 보아야 할 필요가 있는 부분, 즉 현행 정치자금법상 매우 주요한 의미를 가진다고 할 수 있는 기탁금제도와 국고보조금제도 및 후원금제도를 중심으로 살펴보았다. 그리고 이를 위해 특히 기탁금제도와 관련하여서는 비지정기탁제와 국고귀속에 관한 문제를 중심으로, 다음으로 국고보조금제도와 관련하여서는 경상보조금과 선거보조금의 배분·지급과 여성추천보조금에 관한 문제점을 중심으로, 그리고 후원금제도와 관련하여서는 후원인(회)의 모금․기부한도 등에 관한 문제점을 중심으로 고찰해 보았다. 그리고 이와 같은 고찰을 통해 보다 더 합리적이고 시의성 있는 개성방안을 모색해 봄으로써 궁극적으로는 우리의 정치와 정치자금법․제의 발전에 기여하고자 한다.

기업의 정치자금기부 규제에 관한 헌법적 검토

조소영(Cho, So-Young) 한국비교공법학회 2016 공법학연구 Vol.17 No.4

정치자금의 문제는 정치영역에서의 문제이고 정치적 공동체 내에서의 국민의 정치적 자유권과 밀접한 관계를 갖는다. 그리고 이 문제는 법에 의해 특별히 그 인격이 부여된 법인이나 단체도 그 존재성에 기하여 어떠한 의미에서는 정치적 자유권을 향유할 수 있는 주체가 될 수 있다는 점에서 기업을 대표로 하는 법인과도 관련된 문제이다. 다만 기업의 정치자금 기부 허용의 문제는 특히 자본력에 있어서 개인을 능가하는 단체와의 힘의 불균형을 조정해야 할 필요성이 있을 뿐만 아니라 이러한 불균형을 방치하는 경우에는 자연인인 개인들의 주권자로서의 지위가 약화되는 지경에 이르게 된다는 점에서 규제의 당위성은 인정된다. 또한 정경유착의 부패적 경험과 이에 대한 우려가 심각한 선거현실 속에서 더군다나 막강한 자본력을 보유한 기업인 경우에는 더 신중한 검토와 고민이 함께 해야만 하는 것이다. 이러한 문제의식을 바탕으로 하여 이 글에서는 기업의 정치자금 기부 규제에 관한 전면적 금지규정에 대한 검토를 주된 분석대상으로 하고 있다. 기업이 헌법상 정치적 자유권의 기본권주체성을 갖는 것인지, 기업이 정치적 영역에서 기본권능력을 갖는다는 것이 어떤 의미인지, 기업의 정치자금 기부에 관한 제한규정은 어떻게 변해 왔는지, 2004년 정치자금에 관한 법률이 개정됨으로써 기업의 정치자금기부가 전면적으로 금지된 이후 2006년부터 선관위가 정치관계법 개정의견으로 제시한 내용들은 어떤 것이었는지, 관련된 판례의 내용은 어떤 것인지 그리고 기업의 정치자금기부에 대한 전면적 금지는 헌법적으로 어떻게 평가되어야 하는 것인지 등을 중심으로 논의하였다. 그리고 이러한 논의과정을 통해서 현행 정치자금법상의 법인 · 단체의 정치자금 기부금지 규정의 개정방향을 전면적 금지의 시각으로부터 원칙적 허용 · 기부방법과 공시의무 설정 등의 제한제도를 도입하는 방향으로 개선안을 모색해 보고자 하였다. The purpose of our Political Funds Act in force is to contribute to the sound development of democratic politics by guaranteeing the fair provision of political funds, ensuring the transparency of political funds through the disclosure of the details of their revenues and expenditures and preventing irregularities involving political funds. We know that this legislation has been reflect negative views and experiences about relations of politics and money. And we know that the relationship between politics and money is a necessary evil, too. Our worries are starting at just such duality. So I review the constitutionality of restrictions on contributions of corporation or organization in our Political Funds Act in force. This is because the corporation or organization admits subjectivity of constitutional rights in political scope according to modern constitutional interpretation. The article 31 of our Political Funds Act in force is as follows, “① Every foreigner, corporation or organization both at home and abroad shall be prohibited from contributing any political funds. ② No one shall contribute any political fund from any corporation or any organization both at home and abroad.” In other words, the meaning of this provision is an absolute or entire prohibition of political contributions of corporations. But political contributions are of the freedom of political expression or association of corporations depending on that cases. So this constitutionality issue is worthy of review is to be recognized. And then I review meaning of subjectivity recognition of corporations" constitutional rights in political scope, history of restrictions on political contributions of corporations, related constitutional court case, submitted revision opinions of Election Commission, and the standard of constitutional(judicial) review for this article. In conclusion, I want to seek a revision direction of the current prohibition article through this examination process.

정당 정치자금의 투명성 강화 방안

음선필 ( Sun Pi Euml ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2012 홍익법학 Vol.13 No.4

This article starts from a question about whether Korean current political funding system enables the development of party politics. Political fund recognized as the cost of democracy and political party as the lifeline of the modern politics, the combination of the gold and political power has been a natural phenomenon. It is a matter of grave concern whether party politics as a form of democracy is implemented successfully through the proper operation of the political funds, or is deteriorated by the plutocracy. It is more the case in Korea where such slogans as ``Political reform`` or ``Change for new politics`` are proclaimed. Understanding that the development of party politics is the faithful implementation of the constitutional duties of parties, we should design a more rational political funding system and a better way of operation in the constitutional aspect. From a systematic interpretation of the Constitution and the Political Funds Act, the direction of party political funding system can be derived as follows. First, the political (party) financial stability; secondly, transparency of party finance and fraud prevention through the openness of revenue and expenditure; thirdly, securing political competition for the implementation of party`s constitutional duties(intra- and interparty competition for intraparty democracy and the multiple party system). Above all, income and expenditures of party should be opened and its external examination be more reinforced in order to ensure the transparency of political funding. And ``the accessibility to information of political funds`` and ``the timeliness of the information disclosure`` should be strengthened so that the eyes of a number of watchmen may find frauds which might exist in the party financial reports. For this more information on the funding of political party should be disclosed over a much longer period. And the management and supervision function of the National Election Commission (NEC) on party finance should be strengthened through reinforcing the direct investigation and the report to the public prosecutor`s office, increasing efficiency through the reduction of regulatory costs of NEC, and increasing the effectiveness of the control by people on the funding of political parties.

정치자금 기탁제도의 합리화 방안

음선필 ( Sun Pil Eum ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2015 홍익법학 Vol.16 No.3

Political fund donations of corporations and organizations are strictly prohibited under the current Political Fund Act. The Act prohibits not only their donation to political parties but also their deposition to the Election Commissions. On February 25. 2015, the National Election Commission proposed an amendment of the Act that allows corporations and organizations to deposit political funds to the Commissions. But, considering our current political culture and especially the level of consciousness associated with the provision of political funds, it should not be permitted to allow corporations and organizations to donate political funds including the deposition to the Commissions until the transparency of political funding is institutionalized rationally. Such donation could be only permitted in parallel with the transparency, or after it would be secured. It would be more reasonable to introduce a specified deposit system if allowed the deposit donations of corporations and organizations, which are not just the reliable means of party political funding. Regarded as important actors that are able to participate in the political process, corporations and organizations can have the freedom to donate to parties. Therefore, the specified deposit should be allowed, restrictively or freely. Even if the deposition of corporations and organizations is not permitted, a specified deposit system should be introduced in order to maximize the freedom of political expression of individuals under the current system. Considering the practical situation, it may be desirable to allow donation of the specified deposit under 50% level of the total deposit. Allowing the specified deposit money may lead to a problem of the possibility of the deposit donation of civil servants and private school teachers, who, according to the current law, do not have the qualifications of political party members and can not donate party membership fee and support payment. However, it seems to be desirable for them to express their own political will through the donation of the specified deposit while they are not able to participate directly in the party as members.

독일 정치자금 관련 법규들과 기민련(CDU)의 재무구조

문수현 ( Soo Hyun Mun ) 이화사학연구소 2016 梨花史學硏究 Vol.0 No.52

This article explores the regulation of political funding in Germany and how CDU, the incumbent ruling party, modified its financial structure in accordance with these national regulations. This process was not maneuvered by the political parties, but by the Federal Constitutional Count which repeatedly provided the guide lines to improve the political funding structure. The occasional political scandals such as Kohl Scandal and Flick Scandal provided the impetus to improve the legal framework to strengthen control over political funding. Since 1959, German political parties were entitled to receive state funding, with the form of state funding evolving ever since. With the implementation of the Act on the Political Party in 1967, only campaigning costs for the various elections could be reimbursed. This system was subsequently replaced by a system of general annual state funding through the amendment to the Act on Political Party in 1994. It was inevitable that state funding was accompanied by state control on the political funding; in line with the decisions by the Federal Constitutional Court in 1966, 1984, 1992, 1999, the parties are requested to submit due statements of their revenues or assets. Those persons who submitted incorrect statement of account could be punished under the criminal law. In the midst of these regulatory changes, CDU, which had previously relied heavily on the wealthy donors for political funding, could be transformed into a mass party where membership dues constituted approximately 40% of the party`s funding. - similar to the Social Democratic Party(SPD)

정당국고보조금제도의 헌법적 검토

음선필(Eum Sun-pil) 한국헌법학회 2008 憲法學硏究 Vol.14 No.2

  In Korea, in the 1980 Constitution, a new system was introduced so as to provide national subsidies that would increase the resources available to political parties. It was advocated to protect and to promote political parties, which are regarded as indispensible actors in the modern democracy. Under the subsidy provision of the Constitution, many political parties have been supplied a great amount of political funds. It is, however, questionable if such political funds have made political parties play their roles and do their duties imposed in the Constitution.<BR>  It is, therefore, necessary to inquire into the rationale of state subsidy to a political party that is in itself a private association, the definition of state subsidy, the standard of its distribution, and the audit of state subsidy etc. This scrutiny leads to an examination of the constitutionality of the current subsidy system.<BR>  Evaluating the provisions and the practices of the Acts concerning to subsidies, we can find some factors making dysfunctions of the subsidy system ― such as misconceptions of the constitutional rationale, incorrect understanding of the definition, and the clumsy combination of the system.<BR>  The state subsidy to political parties is not a blind financial aid, but a supporting fund helping political parties fulfill constitutional obligations. The rationale of granting money to political parties can be derived not on ly from the Art. 8 Sec. 2 of the Constitution, but also from Sec. 3 which is the provision of the role and the duty of a political party.<BR>  From a standpoint of the participation through political finances, it is more desirable to set the budget on the basis of the number of voters and to distribute subsidies to political parties according to their number of votes.