“During his 2020 Senate campaign, backed congressional term limits and a ban on elected officials becoming lobbyists after leaving office, framing these as steps to 'drain the swamp.'”
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.
Adversarially verified all three cited sources via WebFetch; all are reachable and support what they are cited for, with accurate (non-fabricated) quotes. (1) Cruz Senate press release (PRIMARY) confirms Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) is a named cosponsor of S.J.Res.2, the Jan. 23, 2023 constitutional amendment limiting Senators to two terms and House members to three — the same 3-House/2-Senate structure he pledged; the rating's quote matches the page (trivial "Senators" vs. "Sens." abbreviation; all 11 names including Tuberville present). (2) U.S. Term Limits page (REPUTABLE_SECONDARY) confirms 2020 Senate candidate Tuberville signed the pledge and reproduces the quoted pledge language verbatim, supporting the term-limits half of the compound promise. (3) Rick Scott press release (PRIMARY) confirms the BLAST Act to permanently ban former members from lobbying, names only Scott and Warren, and does not list Tuberville — correctly supporting the rationale's point that no legislative action by Tuberville on a lobbying ban was found, though this proves non-cosponsorship of only this one 2026 bill (absence of evidence, which the rating honestly acknowledges). PARTIAL is well-calibrated: one half of the compound "drain the swamp" promise is firmly delivered with primary evidence (term-limits cosponsorship), the other half shows no affirmative record of delivery. The outcome does not overstate the evidence, and confidence is appropriately tempered because the lobbying-ban conclusion rests on absence of evidence. Rating upheld under a strictly nonpartisan bar.
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.