“Ban hedge funds and private equity firms from owning single-family homes by passing the End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act (H.R.6608), which he authored — forcing large investors to sell at least 10% of their single-family homes to families each year until they are fully divested over 10 years.”
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.
Independently verified against two live sources. Congress.gov (fetched HTTP 200) confirms H.R.6608, the 'End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act' (118th Congress, 2023-2024), Sponsor: Rep. Smith, Adam [D-WA-9], Introduced 12/05/2023, with 17 cosponsors; latest action 'House - 12/05/2023 Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services.' GovTrack (fetched HTTP 200) independently confirms Adam Smith of Washington's 9th district as sponsor, introduction on December 5, 2023, and that the bill 'did not receive a vote' (marked Died). The bill's stated purpose matches the promise mechanism: 'to impose an excise tax on the failure of certain hedge funds owning excess single-family residences to dispose of such residences' (the escalating 10-percent-per-year forced-divestment schedule over 10 years). Adam Smith is the author and lead sponsor who introduced the named bill and recruited 17 cosponsors, i.e. he actively led and drove the effort (beyond a single supporting vote), but it stalled in committee and was never enacted. That squarely fits CHAMPIONED (+0.75), not FULL/PARTIAL (not enacted) nor mere ATTEMPTED (he led, not just supported). The label is applied to the same standard any party's lead sponsor of an authored-but-stalled signature bill would receive; no partisan leniency. Confidence held at 0.9 given full two-source corroboration; short of 1.0 only because the fine-grained 10%/10-year statutory text was confirmed via summary rather than a fetched full-text quote.
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.