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讨西方自由民主国家的政治金融法律对立法辩论质量的影响程度。研究问题：政治金融法律和实践会影响立法辩论的质量吗？如果有，具体是哪些法律？政治资金的重要性对所有西方民主国家来说，竞选资金是选举过程中的一个关键因素，其目的是维护和提高选举的公正性。当代的许多例子表明，竞选财务法可能会损害选举和民主进程。例如，在2012年美国立法选举中，95%的众议院候选人和80%的参议院候选人在花费上超过对手的情况下赢得了选举（Hickey, 2012），这表明竞选资金与选举结果之间存在显著联系。这个例子强调了一个潜在的问题，即政治家可能会过度依赖政治捐助者来当选，并可能在政治辩论中优先考虑捐助者的声音。虽然探索政治金融法律影响政治进程的各种方式的文献很普遍，但致力于对辩论质量影响的文献却少得多。通过运用比较方法探索协商领域，本研究将为这一关键性政治问题做出及时而重要的贡献，填补协商研究的明显空白，为政治学者提供有价值的研究。这项研究对于政策制定者寻求通过金融改革改善立法领域的民主审议，以及恢复公众对民主完整性的信心至关重要。方法本研究将采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财务监管之间的联系，本研究将使用内容分析和访谈技术探讨竞选财务监管对不同西方自由民主国家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是不成熟的。但是，将采用一种系统的选择方法，根据政治财政法的4个不同类别（公共财政、捐款限制、支出限制、透明度）对每个国家进行排名。选择过程必须考虑其他各种可能影响良好审议辩论的独立变量；例如，选举制度（Uhr, 1998）、公民投票（Steiner, 2012）和立法结构（Grogan & Gusmano, 2005）。从这些排名中，将选择国家进行比较研究，可以利用米尔的协议技术方法进行分析，以控制额外的自变量（米尔，1843）。穆勒的一致性方法是比较分析中一个有用的工具，用于“寻找不变性模式”（Ragin， 2014年，第37页），并在“具有一个共同特征”的案例中识别因果变量（Alasuutari等人，2008年，第252页）。通过分析某些政策领域最近的立法发展情况，将采用案例研究分析来衡量政治财政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影响最大，并衡量公众意见在多大程度上得到了考虑。内容分析将是使用的主要方法，并将从斯坦纳在不同政治制度和制度下审议模式的实证评估中使用的现有研究设计中获得指导（斯坦纳，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).