Electoral finance and deliberative democracy: Can different approaches to electoral finance impact the quality of legislative debate?

研究目的本研究的主要目的是探索西方自由民主国家的政治金融法对立法辩论质量的影响程度。研究问题：政治金融法和实践是否会影响立法辩论的质量？如果是，具体是哪些法律？政治财政的重要性Campaign财政是所有西方民主国家选举过程中的一个关键因素，旨在维持和改善选举的完整性。许多当代的例子表明，竞选资金法律可能会损害选举和民主进程。例如，在2012年的美国立法选举中，95%的众议院候选人和80%的参议院候选人以超过对手的开支赢得了选举(希基，2012)，这表明竞选资金与选举结果之间存在显著联系。这个例子突显了一个潜在问题，即政客可能会变得过度依赖政治捐赠者当选，并可能在政治辩论中优先考虑捐赠者的声音。尽管探讨政治金融法如何影响政治进程的各种方式的文献很多，但专门研究政治金融法对辩论质量影响的文献要少得多。通过运用比较研究的方法来探索审议领域，本研究将为这一关键的政治问题提供及时而重要的贡献，通过解决审议研究中的一个明显的研究空白，为政治学者提供有价值的研究。这项研究对于寻求通过财政改革改善立法领域的民主审议，并恢复公众对民主诚信的信心的政策制定者至关重要。方法本研究将使用比较案例研究来回答概述的研究问题。为了分析协商民主与竞选经费管制之间的关系，本研究将采用内容分析和访谈的方法，探讨西方不同自由民主国家竞选经费管制对立法辩论质量的影响。在研究设计的这个初始阶段，说明将用于比较分析的具体国家还为时过早。然而，将使用一种系统的选择方法，即每个国家将被给予与四个不同类别的政治金融法(公共融资、捐款限制、支出限制和透明度)有关的排名。遴选过程必须考虑能够影响良好的审议辩论的各种其他独立变量；例如，选举制度(Uhr，1998)、全民投票(Steiner，2012)和立法结构(Grogan&Gusmano，2005)。从这些排名中，将选择国家，以便进行比较研究，利用Mill的协定技术进行分析，以控制额外的自变量(Mill，1843)。Mill的协议方法是比较分析中的一个有用工具，用于“寻找不变模式”(Ragin，2014，p.37)，并在“具有一个共同特征”的案例中确定因果变量(Alasutari et al，2008，p.252)。通过分析某些政策领域的最新立法发展，将使用案例研究分析来衡量政治金融法对政治辩论质量的影响：目的是确定哪些利益攸关方在立法辩论中具有最大影响力，并衡量公众意见被考虑到什么程度。内容分析将是使用的主要方法，并将从施泰纳在他对不同政治制度和机构中的审议模式的实证评估中使用的现有研究设计中获得指导(施泰纳，2012)。

Research aimsThe overarching aim of this research is to explore the degree to which political finance laws in western liberal democratic countries impact on the quality of legislative debate.Research Question: Can political finance laws and practices affect the quality of legislative debate? If so, which laws specifically? Importance of political financeCampaign finance is a key element in the election process for all western democratic countries and is designed to maintain and improve electoral integrity. Numerous contemporary examples suggest campaign finance laws can harm electoral and democratic processes. For example, in the 2012 US legislative elections, 95% of House candidates and 80% of Senate candidates who outspent their opponent won their election (Hickey, 2012), indicating a significant link between campaign finance and election outcomes. This example emphasises the potential problem that politicians could become overly reliant on political donors to become elected and may prioritise donor voices in political debate.While literature exploring the various ways political finance laws can impact the political process is widespread, there has been significantly less literature dedicated to the impact on the quality of debate. By exploring deliberative spheres through the use of comparative methods, this research will provide a timely and important contribution to this critical political issue, providing valuable research to political scholars by addressing a clear research gap in deliberative study. This research is essential for policymakers seeking to improve democratic deliberation in legislative spheres through finance reform, and to restore public confidence in democratic integrity.MethodThis research will use comparative case studies to answer the outlined research questions. To analyse the links between deliberative democracy and campaign finance regulation, this research will explore the impact of campaign finance regulation on the quality of legislative debate in different western liberal democracies using content analysis and interview techniques. At this initial stage of the research design, stating the specific countries that will be used for comparative analysis would be premature. However, a systematic method of selection will be used whereby each country will be given a ranking relating to four different categories of political finance law (public financing, contribution limits, spending limits, and transparency). The selection process must consider the various other independent variables that can affect good deliberative debate; for example, electoral systems (Uhr, 1998), referendums (Steiner, 2012), and legislative structures (Grogan & Gusmano, 2005). From these rankings, countries will be selected to allow for a comparative study that can utilise Mill's method of agreement techniques for analysis to control the additional independent variables (Mill, 1843). Mill's method of agreement is a helpful tool in comparative analysis used to 'search for patterns of invariance' (Ragin, 2014, p.37) and to identify causal variables among cases 'with one characteristic in common' (Alasuutari et al, 2008, p.252).A case study analysis will be used to measure the impact of political finance laws on the quality of political debate through an analysis of recent legislative developments of certain policy areas: with the aim of identifying which stakeholders had the most influence in the legislative debate and measuring to what extent public opinion was taken into account. Content analysis will be the primary method used and will take guidance from an existing research design used by Steiner in his empirical assessment of the deliberative model in different political systems and institutions (Steiner, 2012).