Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution in the case of Buckley v. Valeo.

Bill: 113-hconres-6
Sponsor: full_name: Rep. Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9]
Introduced: 2013-01-04
Policy area: Government Operations and Politics
Subjects: Constitution and constitutional amendments

Elections, voting, political campaign regulation

First Amendment rights

Supreme Court
Latest action: action_date: 2013-01-25
text: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution And Civil Justice.

Summaries:
action_date: 2013-01-04
action_desc: Introduced in House
text: <p>Expresses the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution in the case of <i>Buckley v. Valeo</i> because the decision failed to recognize: (1) that the unlimited spending of large amounts of money on elections has a corrosive effect on the electoral process not simply because of direct transactions between those who give large amounts of money and candidates and elected officials but because the presence of unlimited amounts of money corrupts the process on a more fundamental level; and (2) other legitimate state interests which justify limiting money in campaigns, including the need to preserve the integrity of our republican form of government, restore public confidence in government, and ensure all citizens a more equal opportunity to participate in the political process.<br> </p>

tv_txt: IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 6 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 4, 2013 Ms. Kaptur submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution in the case of Buckley v. Valeo.

That it is the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution in its decision in the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo because— (1) the decision failed to recognize that the unlimited spending of large amounts of money on elections has a corrosive effect on the electoral process not simply because of direct transactions between those who give large amounts of money and candidates and elected officials but because the presence of unlimited amounts of money corrupts the process on a more fundamental level; and (2) the decision failed to recognize other legitimate state interests which justify limiting money in campaigns, including the need to preserve the integrity of our republican form of government, restore public confidence in government, and ensure all citizens a more equal opportunity to participate in the political process.