Skip to main content

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

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
ChampionedHealthcare

Restore and extend the enhanced Affordable Care Act premium tax credits to preserve affordable coverage for roughly 26,000 Northwest Washington residents.

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.

ChampionedFact-checker reviewConfidence: 75%

Independent re-check confirms Rep. Rick Larsen (D, WA-02) actively drove this promise well beyond a single supporting vote. Cascadia Daily News (Oct 1, 2025) was fetched and confirms he made extending the ACA premium tax credits his top demand during the 2025 government-shutdown negotiations, citing 25,000+ constituents facing ~60% premium increases. His official campaign statement (ricklarsen.org, Dec 18, 2025) was fetched and confirms '26,000 people I represent depend on these critical ACA tax credits' plus his ongoing effort to extend them with House Democrats. His House office page (larsen.house.gov) could not be independently fetched (HTTP 403 bot-block on his genuine official domain, not a dead or invented link) but is consistent with the cited cosponsorship of the Health Care Affordability Act. Because Democrats were in the House minority, the enhanced credits were not extended into law and were set to expire at the end of 2025, so the promise was not fulfilled (not FULL); but the repeated, prominent affirmative advocacy (top shutdown demand + cosponsorship) constitutes active championing. This label would apply equally to a member of either party with the same record.

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 →