“Pass the Democracy for All Amendment, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United by affirming the power of states and the federal government to set limits on and regulate campaign contributions and spending in elections.”
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. The govinfo.gov primary source confirms H.J.Res.2 (116th Congress) - 'Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections' - is sponsored by Ted Deutch (FL) with James P. McGovern (MA) listed as a cosponsor. This is the Democracy For All Amendment described in the promise (affirming government power to regulate campaign contributions/spending to overturn Citizens United). McGovern's engagement goes well beyond a single supporting vote: Wikipedia (verified) documents that he introduced his own People's Rights Amendment on Nov 15, 2011 targeting corporate personhood, co-introduced H.J.Res.119 with Deutch on July 14, 2014 (a predecessor of the Democracy for All family), publicly stated Citizens United 'was wrongly decided,' and hosted advocacy panels ('Corporations are not people'). This sustained, multi-Congress leadership on the anti-Citizens United constitutional-amendment effort meets the CHAMPIONED threshold (actively led/drove the effort, beyond a single vote). The amendment was never enacted - constitutional amendments require two-thirds of both chambers plus ratification by three-quarters of states, and it stalled in committee - so CHAMPIONED (not FULL) is correct, and CHAMPIONED explicitly permits non-enactment. Adversarial fairness check: a member of either party with this identical record (repeat cosponsorship of a marquee amendment plus co-introduction of an earlier version plus their own related amendment plus vocal floor/panel advocacy) would earn CHAMPIONED under a consistent standard; this is not partisan leniency. Both cited sources are real, live, and accurately quoted.
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.