“Lead and pass the ETHICS Act to ban Members of Congress (and, in the negotiated bipartisan version, their spouses and dependents) from buying, selling, or holding 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 verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
All three cited sources are reachable and directly document this promise and outcome. (1) The merkley.senate.gov release confirms the April 18, 2023 introduction, identifies Merkley verbatim as "the ETHICS Act lead sponsor," and states the bill "would bar members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from owning or trading individual stocks, securities, commodities, or futures." (2) The HSGAC release confirms the July 24, 2024 committee advancement, identifies Merkley as lead sponsor with the bipartisan bill "built off of Merkley's ETHICS Act," and contains the verbatim Merkley quote "For the first time, a Senate committee considered and passed legislation to ban Congressional stock trading." (3) Roll Call confirms the 8-4 committee approval, that Merkley introduced the original measure and negotiated the revised version with Ossoff, Peters, and Hawley, and that the bill did NOT pass the full Senate or become law. This satisfies the CHAMPIONED leadership test: the record shows Merkley as lead sponsor/author and bipartisan dealmaker — active leadership, not a lone vote or passive support — while the promised enactment ("pass") did not occur. CHAMPIONED (led but not passed) is correct; it neither overstates (not FULL, since no passage) nor understates (stronger than ATTEMPTED/PARTIAL, given documented leadership) the evidence. Quotes were verified: the load-bearing phrases appear verbatim in the sources; the rating's rendering is lightly paraphrased/composited but not fabricated.
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.