PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1984)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 8, 2004
Amends rule XXIV (Limitations on Use of Official Funds) of the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide that a mass mailing of a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner is not frankable when it is postmarked less than 90 (currently less than 60) days before the date of a primary or general election (whether regular, special, or runoff) in which the individual is a candidate for public office.
People & committees
Rep. Larson, John B. [D-CT-1] · D–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1984)
Referred to the House Committee on Rules. (text of measure as introduced: CR 11/16/2004 E1984)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze H.Res.848 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.
Examine H.Res.848 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.
Examine H.Res.848 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.
Examine H.Res.848 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.