“Oppose congressional earmarks.”
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. Rep. Roger Williams (TX-25) promised to oppose congressional earmarks, yet he requested and secured his own Community Project Funding (CPF), which is the current form of congressional earmarks. The Tarleton State University news page (verified live) directly names Williams as securing $3.575 million in CPF through the FY25 Transportation-HUD appropriations bill and quotes him taking public credit: 'I am proud to announce this more than $3.5 million investment in Tarleton State University and the Stephenville community.' The Texas Tribune (Sept 29, 2025, verified live) reports 33 of Texas' 37 House members requested earmark funding and names the only four Republicans who declined (Fallon, Goldman, Roy, Self); Williams is NOT among those abstainers, confirming by exclusion that he requested earmarks. The two cited house.gov URLs return HTTP 403 to automated fetches (a standard bot block, not fabrication), and their content is verbatim-corroborated by the independently verified Tarleton page (identical quote and $3.575M CPF figure). Requesting and securing one's own earmarks is a measure taken directly against a pledge to oppose earmarks, so MISALIGNED (-0.75) is correct. The standard is applied nonpartisanly: four Texas Republicans did decline earmarks, so abstaining was a genuine available choice; Williams chose to participate. A Democrat with an identical record would receive the same label.
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.