Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution in the case of Buckley v. Valeo.
The source supplies the latest action, but no lifecycle stage.
Latest action (9 Feb 2009): Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
What this bill does
This resolution, H.Con.Res. 13, expresses the opinion of Congress that the Supreme Court's decision in *Buckley v. Valeo* misinterpreted the First Amendment. Specifically, it states that the Court did not recognize how unlimited campaign spending can fundamentally corrupt the electoral process, beyond direct transactions. It also asserts that the Court failed to acknowledge other valid reasons for limiting campaign money, such as preserving the integrity of government and ensuring equal participation for all citizens.
The resolution affects the public's perception of past Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance and the First Amendment. It also impacts how Congress may approach future legislation or statements regarding campaign finance regulations and constitutional interpretations. The bill is intended to register Congress's view on this legal interpretation.
This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 8, 2009, and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. It was then sent to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. As a concurrent resolution, its passage requires agreement from both the House and the Senate. If passed by both chambers, it would represent Congress's official sense or opinion but would not have the force of law.
Plain-English summary generated by Bill100 AI from the official record. Always verify against the source below.
Official summary
Expresses the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution in the case of Buckley v. Valeo 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.
Timeline
9 Feb 2009
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
Common questions
- What does H.Con.Res. 13 do?
- This resolution, H.Con.Res. 13, expresses the opinion of Congress that the Supreme Court's decision in *Buckley v. Valeo* misinterpreted the First Amendment. Specifically, it states that the Court did not recognize how unlimited campaign spending can fundamentally corrupt the electoral process, beyond direct transactions. It also asserts that the Court failed to acknowledge other valid reasons for limiting campaign money, such as preserving the integrity of government and ensuring equal participation for all citizens. The resolution affects the public's perception of past Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance and the First Amendment. It also impacts how Congress may approach future legislation or statements regarding campaign finance regulations and constitutional interpretations. The bill is intended to register Congress's view on this legal interpretation. This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 8, 2009, and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. It was then sent to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. As a concurrent resolution, its passage requires agreement from both the House and the Senate. If passed by both chambers, it would represent Congress's official sense or opinion but would not have the force of law.
- Has H.Con.Res. 13 become law?
- The source does not supply a confirmed lifecycle stage for H.Con.Res. 13. Check the latest action and official source below.
- Who sponsored H.Con.Res. 13?
- H.Con.Res. 13 was sponsored by Rep. Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9] (D-OH), with 4 cosponsors.
- What's the latest action on H.Con.Res. 13?
- Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. (9 Feb 2009).
Related bills in Law
Criminal History Access Act of 2026
Speak Your Truth Act
Executive Settlement Review Act
Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2026
More bills from Rep. Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9]
Sunlight on SuperPACs Act of 2026
To authorize the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood risk management, including riverbank stabilization, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, along the Maumee River in the vicinity of Glass City Riverwalk, Toledo, Ohio, and for other purposes.
To require the Secretary of the Army to expedite the completion of agreements with non-Federal interests for beneficial use of dredged material from federally authorized harbors in the State of Ohio, and for other purposes.
Supporting the designation of May 15, 2024, as "National Senior Fraud Awareness Day" to raise awareness about the increasing number of fraudulent scams targeted at seniors in the United States, to encourage the implementation of policies to prevent those scams from happening, and to improve protections from those scams for seniors.
Bill100 mirrors the public U.S. legislative record from Congress.gov and GovTrack and adds plain-English AI summaries. It is an information tool, not legal, compliance or lobbying advice, and it is not affiliated with the U.S. Congress or any government agency. AI summaries can simplify or omit detail — every bill links to the official source; verify there before you rely on it.