“Ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks — co-sponsor the Ban Conflicted Trading Act (H.R.1579) and support the Restore Trust in Congress Act to prohibit sitting lawmakers from trading stocks.”
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 re-verified against the PRIMARY govinfo BILLSTATUS record for H.R.1579 in the 117th Congress (Ban Conflicted Trading Act, sponsored by Raja Krishnamoorthi): Adam Smith (D-WA-9) is listed among the cosponsors, joining February 4, 2022. This is the exact concrete legislative act the promise named, and cosponsorship is a formal act of sponsorship beyond a single supporting floor vote, which is the CHAMPIONED standard. The second prong is corroborated by his campaign priorities page, which states he supports the Restore Trust in Congress Act to ban member stock trading. The overarching ban was never enacted, but CHAMPIONED explicitly covers driving/sponsoring the effort even without full enactment. Confidence held at 0.73 (not higher) because he was one of roughly 65 cosponsors rather than the lead author, placing him near the CHAMPIONED/ATTEMPTED boundary; this same standard would yield CHAMPIONED for a member of either party with this record. Note: the 118th-Congress H.R.1579 is an unrelated bill (Accredited Investor Definition Review Act) since bill numbers reset each Congress, so only the 117th-Congress record is on point. Dropped the prior billsponsor.com secondary source (could not re-verify live) as redundant to the primary; two real supporting sources remain.
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.