“Re-fund and respect the police and increase penalties for theft and violent crime.”
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 four cited sources are reachable and support the rating. (1) Senate Roll Call 119-1-7 is the vote on S.5, the Laken Riley Act — "A bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to take into custody aliens who have been charged in the United States with theft" — which Scott voted Yea on; it passed 64-35 and is now Public Law 119-1. This is a real but narrow enacted theft-consequence increase he VOTED for rather than led. (2) Scott is the lead sponsor of the Preserving Safe Communities by Ending Swatting Act (penalties up to 20 years); "proud to lead this important bill in the Senate again and look forward to its passage" is verified — genuine leadership on a penalty bill, but not enacted. (3) The 2020 op-ed confirms his pro-police-funding posture; the on-page wording is "Don't defund the police. Fund the police." (rating cited "Do not defund" — a contraction expansion, not a fabrication, meaning intact). (4) WTXL confirms Scott reintroduced the Protect and Serve Act increasing penalties for targeting law enforcement (joined colleagues; Tillis original introducer) — reintroduced, not enacted. Net: sustained advocacy plus one enacted narrow theft measure he voted for, plus self-led/co-sponsored penalty bills that stalled, and no enacted federal police-funding win. That is genuine partial delivery — short of FULL (most stalled, no funding win) and CHAMPIONED (the enacted item was a floor vote, not his leadership; his led bill did not pass), but above a failed attempt. PARTIAL is correctly calibrated.
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.