선거 TV토론은 방송이라는 특성으로 인해 후보자 참가에 일정한 제한을 둘 수밖에 없다. 국내외에서는 이러한 제한 기준에 대해 군소 후 보자들이 끊임없이 평등권 침해, 국민의 알 권리 침해라며 법적 분쟁을 제기 해왔다. 2007년 대통령선거 TV토론은 개정된 공직선거법에 의해서 처음 개최된다. 그렇다면 현행 공직선거법의 대통령선거 TV토론의 후보자 참여 제 한 기준은 그동안 헌법재판소가 공정 선거에 적용하고 있는 법리에 부합하는 것인지 판례분석을 통해 검토해보고자 한다. 연구문제는 크게 세 가지로 첫째 후보자의 참여와 제한의 기준이 토론회 주책관에 띠라(언론기관이냐, 국가기관이냐) 다르게 적용될 수 있는지, 둘째 헌법재판소가 판단하는 평등의 원칙이란 무엇이며 현행 공직선거법 후보자 제한 기준은 이에 부합하는지, 셋째 헌법재판소는 군소 후보자의 권리 보호와 제한에 대해 어떤 원칙을 적용하며 현행 TV토론 후보자 제한 조항은 이에 부합하는지 분석해보았다. 분석결과 헌법재판소는 TV토론의 주최기관에 따라 후보자 참여 기준을 달리 판단하지는 않았으며, 현행 공직선거법의 후보자 제한 조항인 제82조의2는 헌법재판소가 제시한 ‘같은 것은 같게, 다른 것은 다르게’라는 평등의 원칙에는 부합한다 하더라도 구체적인 기준이 합리적 차별 범위를 넘어 자의적인 기준으로 위헌적 요인이 있는 것으로 판단되었다. 또한 현행 공직선거법 상 군소 후보자 TV토론 개최의 임의적 조항도 문제가 있었다. 이러한 문제점을 해소하기 위해 본 논문은 공직선거법 개정을 통해 선거방송토론위원회가 모든 후보자에게 공정하게 토론회를 개최하도록 의무규정을 마련하고 개최횟수, 방법, 시기는 다를 수 있음을 명시하며 구체적인 사항은 규칙으로 공표하는 방안을 제시했다.
"TV Election Debate" can't help putting a somewhat restriction on the participation of presidential candidates, owing to the characteristics of broadcasting. At home and abroad, the restriction terms on the participation have spawned legal disputes among minority of presidential election candidates, with their ceaseless arguments that 'such terms infringe equality rights and the people's right to know' TV debates for Presidential election for 2007 will be held for the first time, according to the amended law related to the public election. Thus, the research thesis is designed to make a review on whether the restriction terms of presidential candidate participants of TV debates of Presidential election, in accordance to the current law related to public position election, are pertained to the law rules applied to the fair and square elections by the Constitutional Court. To do it, the thesis is intended to conduct an analysis on the existing precedents. In this regard, the researches and studies were made as to the following three subjects. Firstly, it was analyzed on whether the restriction terms of presidential candidate participants can be variably applied, depending on debate organizations, such as the press media or state agencies. Secondly, it was analyzed how the Consitutional Court judges on equality principles, and on whether the restriction terms of presidential candidates of the current law related to public position election comply with such principles. Lastly, it was raised what principles the Consitutional Court applies into protecting rights of a minority of presidential candidates and regulating such rights, and whether the provisions related to the restriction on the ongoing TV debate candidates conform to such principles. The analytic results show that the Consitutional Court has not variably judged the participatory terms of presidential candidates, depending on the status of TV debate organizations. And, it is judged that although 2 paragraph of Article 82 stipulating the restriction on presidential candidates according to the law related to public position election, is pertained to equality principles, namely, "Same is applied to same," but "Difference is applied to difference," such paragraph runs counter to the law, seen on the basis of its 'discretional' standard, instead of 'lawful' and distinct concrete standard. Also, the tentative provisions, related to TV debates, among a minority of presidential candidates are found to have had much problem, according to the current law related to public position election. As part of bid to address such problems, the research thesis has presented the compulsory regulations so that under the revisions of the law related to public position election, election broadcasting debates committee could help all presidential candidates hold each debate meeting, in a fair and square way. And, the thesis has provided that 'frequency', 'method', and 'period' of holding such TV debates can be adjusted, with the provision that all concrete steps should be taken under the ground of 'rule'.