Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account

This record is only as complete as the public makes it

No one has catalogued Stephen F. Lynch's campaign promises yet — and an empty page holds no one accountable. StumpWatch is built by volunteers, one sourced promise at a time. Be the first to add this official's promises: paste a campaign pledge or public statement with a link to where it was said, and we'll start tracking whether it's kept. Every entry is sourced, neutral, and open to correction.

Stephen F. Lynch

DemocratStephen F. Lynch

U.S. Representative · Massachusetts

Massachusetts's 8th district

DemocratFederal

U.S. Representative from Massachusetts

0 tracked promises

Massachusetts · Massachusetts's 8th district

Massachusetts's 8th district

Their congressional district

View district dashboard →

Trust rating

Not yet rated

Not enough rated promises yet to provide an accurate Trust Rating.

Their tracked promises haven’t been rated against the record yet.

A Trust Rating appears once their promises have been rated against what they actually did. How this is measured. Help build the record →

How they won their seat

Stephen F. Lynch won the 2024 U.S. House election in Massachusetts (District 8) with 66.7% of the vote (265,432 votes).

66.7%
Win share
265,432
Votes for winner
397,767
Total cast
  • Stephen F. Lynch · Democrat66.7%
  • Robert G. Burke · Republican27.8%
  • Blanks · Na5.3%
  • 1 Other Candidate0.2%

Certified results. Source: MIT Election Data + Science Lab (MEDSL) ↗. A plurality winner can hold under 50% when more than two candidates run.

Inferred legislative agendas

Stephen F. Lynch's record shows a concentration on consumer protection, financial services, and military affairs. Notable sponsored bills include the 'Vote by Mail Protection Act of 2026' and the 'Military Consumer Protection Task Force Act of 2025', reflecting legislative activity in electoral integrity and veteran issues. His committee memberships include oversight and financial services, with involvement in digital assets and technology. Focus areas (from the record): Consumer Protection · Financial Services · Military Affairs · Oversight · Technology Alignment with declared positions: Insufficient evidence. There are no declared positions or tracked promises on file to compare against Lynch's legislative activity, making it impossible to assess alignment. What this can't tell you: The record does not reveal Lynch's motives or intentions behind his sponsored bills; There is no information on the effectiveness of the bills he has sponsored; The absence of declared positions limits understanding of his priorities and commitments. Confidence: moderate (based on the volume of verified record on file).

Inferred, not stated. Stephen F. Lynch has not necessarily stated these as goals. This is an AI-generated, nonpartisan reading of the patterns in their verified record — sponsored legislation, committee work, roll-call votes, and campaign-finance composition — and how those patterns compare to any declared positions and tracked promises. It describes what the record emphasizes, never imputes motive, and is run through an adversarial review pass that scrubs bias, loaded language, and any claim the evidence doesn’t support. It is not a quote, a claim they made, or a rating; every underlying item is sourced in the verified record below; and it never affects the Integrity Score.

Showing 2023. Every tile and chart below reflects this window; some record types (e.g. roll-call votes) only have data for recent years.

Activity in office

What Stephen F. Lynch has actually done in office — sourced from official roll-call and government records, shown in full below. These are facts, separate from tracked promises and never folded into any score. The tracked-positions tile counts sourced stated positions — claims about what they believe, not conduct — and is likewise never scored.

Roll-call data last updated September 7, 2026 · source: Voteview.

Bills sponsored over time

15bills sponsored
15 pending
05101520Bills2023: 15 pending152023

Bills sponsored per year, stacked by outcome (latest action). Outcome data covers the 118th–119th Congresses; earlier years show as “awaiting status” until enriched. Source: Congress.gov.

Bill success rate

0%
0 of 15 sponsored bills became law
15 pending

Bills SPONSORED in the 118th–119th Congresses, by their latest action. Source: Congress.gov.

Campaign finance over time

$0
Cash on hand · 2026
$730K
Raised, 20262026
RaisedSpentCash on hand
$0$250K$500K$750K$1M2026: raised $730K2026: spent $642K20262026: cash on hand $0
Where the money came from · 2026
Small-dollar (unitemized): $38K (5%)Large individual (itemized): $212K (30%)30%PAC / committee: $464K (65%)65%
  • Small-dollar (unitemized)$38K5%
  • Large individual (itemized)$212K30%
  • PAC / committee$464K65%

By election cycle. Source: FEC.

Committee memberships

Verified record

224 sponsored bills · finance on file

Facts imported directly from official government sources — shown separately from tracked promises and never folded into the Integrity Score. Each entry links to its primary source.

Campaign financeas of Mar 31, 2026

FEC 2026 cycle — raised $542,308, spent $447,477, cash on hand $0.

View the FEC filing ↗

Sponsored legislation

Showing the 12 most recent of 224 sponsored measures.

Voting record

Total votes
655
Yea
273
Nay
348
Present
0
Not voting
34

Full voting record

655 votes
  • HRES1498Not voting
  • HR9436Not voting
  • HR9436Not voting
  • HRES1490Not voting
  • HRES1499Not voting
  • HRES1499Not voting
  • HR6500Not voting
  • S32Not voting
  • S307Not voting
120 of 655
Page 1 / 33

Roll-call votes, 119th Congress. Source: Voteview (voteview.com). Click any vote to verify it independently.

Positions on record

3 positions on record

The record on this issue — recorded votes this official cast, and sourced claims about what they believe. Each is labelled with which it is, because a vote is what someone did and a statement is what they said. Neither is scored, and neither affects the Integrity Score.

  • Mass Surveillance, Tracking, and Flock SafetyStated position

    On record asserting that the government ordinarily must obtain a judicial warrant to compel cell phone location data, and urging the DHS Inspector General to open a second investigation into ICE and other DHS components purchasing Americans' location data from commercial data brokers without one.

    SourcesBicameral letter to DHS Inspector General Joseph V. Cuffari requesting a second investigation of warrantless purchases of Americans' cell phone location data by ICE and other DHS components
    View position & sources
  • Mass Surveillance, Tracking, and Flock SafetyStated position

    On record objecting to ICE's acquisition of Penlink tools that collect and search cellphone location data across entire neighborhoods, and demanding that DHS identify any legal justification for mass electronic surveillance conducted without a judicial or administrative warrant.

    SourcesLetter from Rep. Shontel M. Brown and 12 colleagues to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on ICE's acquisition of Penlink neighborhood-scale cellphone location surveillance
    View position & sources
  • Mass Surveillance, Tracking, and Flock SafetyRecorded vote

    On record voting NO on Biggs of Arizona Amendment No. 1 to H.R. 7888, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, an amendment to prohibit warrantless searches of United States persons' communications in the FISA Section 702 database, with exceptions for imminent threats to life or bodily harm, consent searches, and known cybersecurity threat signatures. The amendment failed on a 212 to 212 tie.

    SourcesHouse Roll Call Vote 114, 118th Congress, 2nd Session: On Agreeing to the Amendment, Biggs of Arizona Amendment No. 1 to H.R. 7888, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. Failed by recorded vote, 212 ayes to 212 noes, April 12, 2024.
    View position & sources
Disclosure
No undisclosed priorities on record

Disclosure

A separate measure from the promise scorecard above. It tracks confirmed cases where this official has acted on or championed an issue that already existed when they ran, but which they did not disclose as a priority in their campaign. Each case meets a high evidence bar — three independent sources — and the score is shown alongside the Integrity Score, never merged into it. How this is measured.

No undisclosed priorities on record. This is not a clean-audit claim — it means none have been confirmed for this official.

Suggest a correction to this official's info

See something wrong or out of date — the biography, party, jurisdiction, common name, or photo? Suggest a sourced correction. Every suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.

Sign in to suggest a correction

Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.

Office context & community edit history

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →