Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
IgnoredEthics / lobbying

Pledged to work to impose a lifetime lobbyist ban on former members of Congress.

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 verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

IgnoredFact-checker reviewConfidence: 60%

Sheehy pledged on 2023-12-05 as a Senate candidate to work to impose a lifetime lobbyist ban on former members of Congress, and took office in January 2025. As of July 2026 there is no documented evidence he advanced it. His official Senate legislation page shows no sponsored or cosponsored bill addressing lobbying or a lobbyist ban. The flagship vehicle for exactly this policy — the BLAST Act, imposing a permanent lifetime lobbying ban on former members of Congress — was introduced May 14, 2026 by fellow Republican Sen. Rick Scott with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and both the Warren and Scott press releases (verified verbatim) list only those two senators; Sheehy is absent as a sponsor or cosponsor, confirmed independently via web search. His only documented post-election ethics activity was a blind-trust pledge for his Bridger Aerospace holdings, which the NBC Montana piece covers and which is unrelated to a lobbyist ban. He therefore had a concrete, low-effort opportunity (cosponsoring the BLAST Act) and took no action on this promise, supporting IGNORED. IGNORED claims no leadership and does not overstate the record. Confidence is moderate because the rating rests partly on absence of action and his term runs to 2031, leaving future action possible.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See 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 arguments

These 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.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →