Skip to main content

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

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
ChampionedGovernment ethics and anti-corruption

Pass bipartisan legislation to ban members of Congress and their spouses from owning or trading individual stocks.

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 verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

ChampionedFact-checker reviewConfidence: 90%

Independently verified. On Feb 9, 2022 Warren co-led the Bipartisan Ban on Congressional Stock Ownership Act (S.3631) with Republican Steve Daines (Senate) alongside a House companion by Jayapal/Rosendale; the bill bars members of Congress AND their spouses from owning or trading individual stocks, matching the promise verbatim, and was the first bipartisan Senate proposal of its kind. Warren's press release is live and the quoted statement is confirmed; the Congress.gov bill text and the Jayapal House release confirm the bipartisan sponsorship and the spouse provision. Warren also pressed the case at an April 2022 insider-trading hearing. This is active sponsorship/leadership beyond a single supporting vote, so it exceeds ATTEMPTED. The promise was to 'pass' such a law, and no congressional stock-ownership ban was enacted (the related ETHICS Act only cleared a Senate committee in July 2024 and never became law), so it is capped below FULL/PARTIAL. CHAMPIONED (+0.75) is correct and applies the same standard that a member of either party would receive for sponsoring a matching bipartisan bill that did not pass. The Axios source cited by the prior rating is a real, matching article but 403-blocks automated fetch, so it is replaced here with more robustly verifiable primary sources.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See 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 arguments

These 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.

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 →