Skip to main content

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

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
ChampionedPublic Lands & Access

Committed to keep fighting for expanded public access to public lands.

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: 85%

Independently re-verified every cited source; all four are real, live, and support the outcome. (1) govinfo BILLSTATUS-119s704.xml confirms Daines is the SPONSOR of S.704, the Voluntary Public Access Improvement Act of 2025 (introduced Feb 25, 2025; referred to Senate Agriculture) -- a bill funding the VPA-HIP program that pays landowners to open land to public hunting and fishing, squarely on-promise. (2) govinfo BILLSTATUS-119s3527.xml confirms Daines is the SPONSOR of the Montana Sportsmen Conservation Act (introduced Dec 17, 2025), and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ordered it reported favorably on March 4, 2026; the matching Daines press release of that date is live and the quoted statement is verbatim ('increasing access to Montana's beautiful public lands is one of my top priorities... I'll keep fighting to get it across the finish line'). (3) On enacted measures Daines was a cosponsor, not the lead: govinfo BILLSTATUS-117s904.xml shows Sen. Risch (R-ID) as sponsor of the MAPLand Act with Daines as an ORIGINAL COSPONSOR (Mar 23, 2021), enacted via the House companion H.R. 3113, P.L. 117-114 (Apr 29, 2022); BILLSTATUS-116s3422.xml shows Sen. Gardner (R-CO) as sponsor of the Great American Outdoors Act with Daines as an original cosponsor (Mar 9, 2020), enacted via H.R. 1957, P.L. 116-152 (Aug 4, 2020). The prior rating's rationale described these correctly as cosponsorships; only its S.904 source quote was ambiguous, and that quote is corrected below. ADVERSARIAL COUNTER-EVIDENCE CHECK: the strongest possible refutation would be support for disposing of federal public land. The opposite is documented -- during the June 2025 reconciliation fight Daines publicly opposed Sen. Mike Lee's mandated federal land-sale provision, telling NOTUS on June 26, 2025 'we've got the votes to strike it if we need to,' and Lee withdrew the provision on June 28, 2025. One advocacy group (Western Priorities) characterized an earlier Daines statement as a flip-flop, but the recorded legislative outcome cuts in the promise's favor. FAIRNESS/SYMMETRY TEST: a Democrat with this record -- prime sponsor of two pending access bills, original cosponsor of two enacted access/conservation laws, and an active blocker of a land sell-off -- would also be rated CHAMPIONED. NOT rated FULL because his self-sponsored flagship access bills (S.704, S.3527) remain unenacted and the enacted laws were led by other members; NOT downgraded to ATTEMPTED because he led rather than merely voted. One caveat noted for transparency, not scored: S.3527 works by releasing Wilderness Study Areas, which conservation groups contest as a reduction in protection even though it does expand motorized and recreational access. Outcome and confidence stand as rated; sources refined for accuracy.

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 →