PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.Res.311 / 114th Congress

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress should confirm that money is not free speech and that corporations are not people for purposes of the First Amendment right to make campaign contributions by enacting a constitutional amendment overturning the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and should restore the right of Congress and the States to impose limits on the amount of expenditures that may be made by candidates and others in support of elections for public office by enacting a constitutional amendment overturning the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Buckley v. Valeo.

Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 12, 2015

Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that, in order to overturn the Supreme Court decision in: (1) Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Congress should enact and the states should ratify a constitutional amendment providing that any right of a corporation, other business organization, or other artificial entity to engage in political activity, including making contributions and expenditures to influence an election for public office or a ballot measure, is not derived from the First Amendment but from the laws of the United States and the states and may be exercised only to the extent provided by such laws; and (2) Buckley v. Valeo, Congress should enact and the states should ratify a constitutional amendment providing that Congress and the states have the authority to impose limits on the amount of expenditures that may be made by candidates and others in support of elections for public office.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Nolan, Richard M. [D-MN-8] · D–MN

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

    2. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

    3. Introduced in House

    4. Introduced in House

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

    Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

    Explore the bill from different angles

    Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

    Neutral evidence review

    Objective

    Analyze H.Res.311 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

    View full prompt & sources
    Fairness and public impact

    Progressive lens

    Examine H.Res.311 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

    View full prompt & sources
    Institutions and government scope

    Conservative lens

    Examine H.Res.311 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

    View full prompt & sources
    Individual rights and government power

    Liberty lens

    Examine H.Res.311 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

    View full prompt & sources