“Committed to leading passage of the reintroduced SEC Whistleblower Reform Act to protect and strengthen the Securities and Exchange Commission's whistleblower program.”
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 were fetched and independently verify the CHAMPIONED outcome for THIS promise (to lead passage of the reintroduced SEC Whistleblower Reform Act). (1) govinfo.gov confirms S.811 in the 118th Congress with Grassley as PRIMARY SPONSOR/AUTHOR — the introduction language quoted in the rating ("Mr. Grassley (for himself, Ms. Warren, Ms. Collins, Mr. Warnock, and Ms. Cortez Masto) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs") appears verbatim, establishing real leadership rather than a mere vote or expression of support. (2) The Senate Judiciary press release (03.26.2025) confirms Grassley reintroduced the legislation in 2025 and the quote "I'm proud to reintroduce this legislation to increase government accountability by safeguarding the SEC's Whistleblower Program" is genuine. (3) The Katz Banks blog confirms the March 26, 2025 reintroduction verbatim. This is sustained leadership across two Congresses (lead authorship + public advocacy + reintroduction), satisfying the CHAMPIONED bar. FULL is correctly withheld because the promised object — actual passage/enactment — has not occurred; the bill stalled in the Banking Committee both times and is not law. The same standard would apply to either party.
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.