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.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 7, 2017

Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress should enact and states should ratify constitutional amendments to overturn the Supreme Court's decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Buckley v. Valeo, which both concern spending in federal elections.

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.

People & committees

Who introduced it

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

Committees

Judiciary Committee

0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

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

Jul 11, 2017
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Jun 7, 2017
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Jun 7, 2017
Introduced in House
Jun 7, 2017
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

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

Introduced in House · Jun 7, 2017 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML

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.

AI Conversation Starters

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.377 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

Discuss H.Res.377, 115th 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.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/377

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2017-06-07.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hres377/BILLS-115hres377ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-03T00:51:54Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze H.Res.377 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.Res.377 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

Discuss H.Res.377, 115th 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.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/377

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2017-06-07.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hres377/BILLS-115hres377ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-03T00:51:54Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.377 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.Res.377 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

Discuss H.Res.377, 115th 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.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/377

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2017-06-07.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hres377/BILLS-115hres377ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-03T00:51:54Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.377 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.Res.377 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

Discuss H.Res.377, 115th 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.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/377

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2017-06-07.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hres377/BILLS-115hres377ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-03T00:51:54Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.377 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.