“On Tax Day, pledged to continue standing against 'business as usual' spending in Washington.”
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 pledge is an ongoing-posture commitment (from Schmitt's April 18, 2023 Tax Day statement, where he vowed to 'continue to stand against business as usual in Washington'). His 2023 record consistently matches: he voted AGAINST the bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act debt-ceiling deal (June 1, 2023), publicly stating the bill 'does neither' rein in spending nor enact structural reform; and he was one of only nine Republican senators who voted AGAINST the 45-day continuing resolution (Sept 30, 2023) that kept FY2023 spending levels. No evidence was found of him supporting a 'business as usual' omnibus in 2023, so the posture was maintained. I REVISE rather than CONFIRM because the prior rating's sourcing was defective: (1) it misattributed the quote 'America can't afford to continue these spending levels for one more day, let alone, 45' to Schmitt, when that statement was actually made by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) — Washington Examiner and multiple outlets note most of the nine dissenting senators, including Schmitt, offered no statement on the CR vote; and (2) the GovTrack source's quoted sentence about Schmitt urging 'regular order' does not match GovTrack's content (voting statistics, not narrative) and appears fabricated. Both defects are corrected here. The underlying outcome remains FULL because the posture pledge was verifiably and consistently upheld by two documented no-votes on major 2023 spending/debt bills, with confidence trimmed to reflect the inherent vagueness of a posture pledge. Fairness check: a member of either party with this consistent record of voting against major spending packages after such a pledge would warrant the same high positive rating.
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.