“Introduce a constitutional amendment to entirely eliminate private dollars from our federal elections. Biden believes it is long past time to end the influence of private dollars in our federal elections. As president, Biden will fight for a constitutional amendment that will require candidates for federal office to solely fund their campaigns with public dollars, and prevent outside spending from distorting the election process.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Independently verified. PolitiFact's Biden Promise Tracker (promise #1580) is live and tracks this exact pledge, rating it 'Promise Broken' with a Dec 2024 update stating 'Narrow constitutional amendment proposals went nowhere under Biden' and no sign of an amendment to ban private funding of elections. Across four years Biden never introduced, drafted, endorsed by name, or actively fought for a constitutional amendment to publicly finance federal elections/eliminate private dollars. His backing of the For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) does NOT fulfill or even attempt this promise: that bill offered only a VOLUNTARY, opt-in small-donor 6:1 matching program (statutory, not constitutional; it retains private dollars rather than eliminating them), so it is a different and far weaker mechanism than the promised amendment. Opportunity clearly existed -- Biden formally proposed a separate constitutional amendment (the July 2024 'No One is Above the Law' presidential-immunity amendment, confirmed via CBS), proving he had both the capacity and willingness to champion amendments; he simply never engaged on this one. That rules out NO_OPPORTUNITY. He did not work against public financing, ruling out MISALIGNED/HOSTILE, and did not dodge a specific vote/position, distinguishing it from ABSTAINED. Having the clear opportunity but taking no action on the promised constitutional amendment fits IGNORED. This is the same standard I would apply to any party: a pledge to 'fight for' a constitutional amendment that was never introduced or championed is IGNORED, not ATTEMPTED. The prior rating's three sources are all real, live, and accurately quoted.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.