Skip to main content

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

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
ChampionedTechnology and Elections

Enact the Bots Research Act to direct the Federal Trade Commission to establish a task force studying the impact of automated bot accounts on social media, public discourse, and 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 verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

ChampionedFact-checker reviewConfidence: 90%

Independently verified. DeSaulnier was the sole/lead sponsor who introduced the Bots Research Act (H.R. 7492) in the 118th Congress on February 29, 2024. The govinfo primary bill text confirms 'Mr. DeSaulnier introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce,' and the bill's stated purpose is 'to direct the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission to establish a task force for the purpose of studying the effects of automated accounts on social media, public discourse, and elections' -- an exact match to the promise. Wikipedia confirms he is the originating sponsor, having first introduced the bill (H.R. 2860) in 2019, i.e. a recurring bill he has personally driven. That is leading/sponsoring the effort, well beyond a single supporting vote. The bill was referred to committee and did not become law, so it was championed but not fully enacted. CHAMPIONED (+0.75) is correct and would apply identically to a member of any party who repeatedly authored and introduced a bill that died in committee. Not FULL (never enacted); not ATTEMPTED (he led rather than merely voted). Confidence 0.9 retained.

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 →