“Alsobrooks pledges to co-sponsor Senator Van Hollen's Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act, requiring the largest fossil-fuel emitters to pay to mitigate climate change.”
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.
The promise was to co-sponsor Sen. Van Hollen's Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act, which taxes the largest historical fossil-fuel emitters to fund climate mitigation. Van Hollen introduced it as S.25 (Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act of 2025) in the 119th Congress. Verification: BillTrack50 (a cited source I fetched successfully) confirms the bill identity and lists "Angela Alsobrooks (D)" in the Sponsors section alongside six other legislators. An independent web search corroborates Alsobrooks as a cosponsor of S.25 (Van Hollen sponsor; Markey, Merkley, Sanders, Warren, Welch also cosponsors). This is FULL rather than CHAMPIONED because Van Hollen authored and led the bill; Alsobrooks added her cosponsorship as pledged rather than leading it — consistent with the original introduction naming Van Hollen for himself with Sanders, Merkley, Markey, and Warren (she joined later). Caveat on sourcing: the cited GovTrack cosponsors page (which the rating quoted for the exact Jan. 22, 2025 join date) and the cited Congress.gov bill text both returned HTTP 403 to automated fetches, so I could not directly verify the specific join date or the verbatim introduction line. However, the core promised outcome — that Alsobrooks cosponsored this specific Van Hollen bill — is independently confirmed by a reachable cited source (BillTrack50) plus corroborating search, so the FULL rating is supported and not overstated. Confidence trimmed from 0.95 to 0.90 to reflect that two of the three cited URLs were unreachable to me.
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.