“As a lead Senate sponsor of the PRESS Act (a federal journalist shield law protecting reporters from being compelled to reveal their sources), Durbin committed to keep advancing it: "I will continue to work with my colleagues to see this bill advance."”
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.
The single cited PRIMARY source (US Senate Democratic Caucus press release) is reachable and confirms the operative facts: the bipartisan PRESS Act was brought to the Senate floor via unanimous consent and blocked when Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) objected — a genuine attempt to advance the bill that failed within normal process. The cited quote is verified: the page states verbatim "Republican Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) blocked Senate Democrats' attempt to pass the bipartisan PRESS Act via unanimous consent" (the rating trims "Republican Senator" and the apostrophe but does not fabricate). The ATTEMPTED outcome is not overstated: the source credits Sen. Wyden with championing the bill on the floor ("I thank my friend, Senator Wyden, for coming to the floor to champion...the bipartisan PRESS Act") and never mentions Durbin, so the rating correctly avoids CHAMPIONED and the rationale honestly concedes Durbin showed no verified leadership. Adversarial caveat: because this lone source does not name Durbin, attributing the floor attempt to Durbin personally is inferential — but as a lead co-sponsor and part of Democratic leadership pursuing the UC, and given ATTEMPTED is a modest rating (bill advanced to a floor attempt, then died with the 118th Congress; no abandonment), the evidence supports the outcome without inflation. Rating upheld as ATTEMPTED.
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.