<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="billres.xsl"?>
<!DOCTYPE resolution PUBLIC "-//US Congress//DTDs/res.dtd//EN" "res.dtd">
<resolution dms-id="HBB3E6F624EB04878A284DB5380E31074" key="H" public-private="public" resolution-stage="Pre-Introduction" resolution-type="house-concurrent" star-print="no-star-print"> 
<metadata xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<dublinCore>
<dc:title>114 HCON 154 : Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution in the case of Buckley v. Valeo.</dc:title>
<dc:publisher>U.S. House of Representatives</dc:publisher>
<dc:date>2016-09-15</dc:date>
<dc:format>text/xml</dc:format>
<dc:language>EN</dc:language>
<dc:rights>Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.</dc:rights>
</dublinCore>
</metadata>
<form>
<distribution-code display="yes">IV</distribution-code> 
<congress display="yes">114th CONGRESS</congress> 
<session display="yes">2d Session</session> 
<legis-num>H. CON. RES. 154</legis-num> 
<current-chamber>IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES</current-chamber> 
<action display="yes"> 
<action-date date="20160915">September 15, 2016</action-date> 
<action-desc><sponsor name-id="K000009">Ms. Kaptur</sponsor> submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the <committee-name committee-id="HJU00">Committee on the Judiciary</committee-name></action-desc> 
</action> 
<legis-type>CONCURRENT RESOLUTION</legis-type> 
<official-title display="yes">Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution in the case of Buckley v. Valeo.</official-title> 
</form> 
<resolution-body id="H137A72EACBCF4074987FDCF8FACA9D20" style="traditional"> 
<section display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="H436E782479F6454580D165FA2116D986" section-type="undesignated-section"><enum></enum><text>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—</text> <paragraph id="HC3D1E8798915434E8A9AECB10B9F9672"><enum>(1)</enum><text>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</text> </paragraph> 
<paragraph id="H1861DAD086C1400B951A1D6C16729006"><enum>(2)</enum><text>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.</text> </paragraph></section> </resolution-body> </resolution> 

