Abstract This paper examines Justice Scalia’s approach to campaign finance adjudication, in particular his skepticism of legislative motive. Three distinct strands of skepticism are identified: power-grabbing, incumbent-bracing and speech-preventing. As regards democracy Justice Scalia is identified as being caught in definitional dilemma whereby his campaign finance jurisprudence appears to serve a particular vision of democracy, which is, itself, the identifiable creature of his approach to constitutional adjudication. Ultimately, it is argued that, whilst a liberal dose of mistrust of government might well be warranted in cases concerning the devices of democracy, in the task of scrutinising campaign finance regulation and reform, a strong argument emerges for suspicion of judicial motives too since there is as much danger to democracy posed by the tenured fox as by the incumbent one.

中文翻译：

---

斯卡利亚大法官（Scala）：民主党母鸡馆的终身狐狸？

摘要本文考察了斯卡利亚大法官对竞选财务裁决的方法，特别是他对立法动机的怀疑。怀疑论分为三个不同的方面：权力夺取，在职支持和防止言语。关于民主，斯卡利亚大法官被认为陷入了定义上的两难境地，由此他的竞选财务判例似乎符合一种特定的民主视野，而民主本身就是他进行宪法裁决的方式的可识别生物。最终，有人认为，尽管在涉及民主制度的案件中应该放宽对政府的不信任，但在审查竞选资金监管和改革的任务中，