377 (1880) (leaving open the question of whether “there may not be things done, in the one House or the other, of an extraordinary character, for which the members who take part in the act may be held legally responsible.”). However, if the sole basis for a § 1983 action is the failure to pass legislation, legislative immunity would foreclose suit. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. at 734, 100 S.Ct. 1967 (distinguishing suits predicated on the actions of legislative members acting in a legislative rather than enforcement capacity). The failure, even if unconstitutional, to appropriate funds for an election reform does not constitute a flagrant violation of a fundamental constitutional protection so extraordinary as to abrogate legislative immunity. Nat'l Ass’n of Social Workers, 69 F.3d at 634 (<HOLDING>). B. Sovereign Immunity of the Commonwealth
holding that legislative immunity does not depend on motivation for legislative action even if the motive was to impinge on plaintiffs free speech rights holding that shortterm and sporadic interference with free exercise rights does not violate the first amendment holding that legislative immunity is not forfeited simply because the activities if unprotected might violate a plaintiffs first amendment rights holding that divergent expressions of unprotected ideas does not violate copyright law recognizing the preliminary issue in a first amendment challenge is whether the speech at issue is protected or unprotected