“As Chair of the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Commodities, Risk Management, and Trade, committed to advocate for provisions benefiting Minnesota farmers, push for more open foreign markets, and support strong crop insurance and commodity programs.”
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.
This is an advocacy/effort promise with three prongs (advocate for Minnesota farmers; push for more open foreign markets; support strong crop insurance and commodity programs), all using effort verbs. As Chair of the Subcommittee on Commodities, Risk Management, and Trade, Smith took documented official actions on each prong, so FULL (not CHAMPIONED, since no single enacted legislative win) is defensible. Verification of all three cited sources: (1) The agriculture.senate.gov page is reachable and the hearing-title quote appears verbatim, confirming a May 2, 2023 Subcommittee on Commodities, Risk Management, and Trade hearing on the farm safety net — supporting the crop-insurance/commodity-programs prong, though the page itself does not name Smith (indirect link via her chairmanship). (2) The beginning-farmers release is reachable, the quote appears verbatim, and it confirms Smith LED the June 4, 2024 subcommittee hearing on beginning farmers — strong support for the Minnesota-farmers prong. (3) The Trade Cheating Restitution Act release is reachable, the quote appears verbatim, and it confirms Smith co-introduced the bill with Thune (Dec 18, 2025) — supports the trade prong (though it is anti-dumping/restitution rather than literally opening markets). No source is unreachable, no quote is fabricated, and the outcome does not overstate the evidence for an effort-based promise.
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.