“Reinstate Glass-Steagall protections by enacting her Return to Prudent Banking Act, which would again legally separate commercial banking from investment banking and end the 'too big to fail' status of the largest institutions.”
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.
Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Wikipedia's Marcy Kaptur article independently confirms she was the sponsor of H.R. 1489 (2011) — the Return to Prudent Banking Act — 'a bill aimed at restoring key provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act (1933) by repealing parts of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (1999) and restoring the separation between commercial banking and securities trading,' with 30 co-sponsors. The promise text itself refers to 'her' bill, consistent with Kaptur being the originating and repeat sponsor across Congresses (H.R. 1489, 129, 381, 790, 2176). None reached passage — all died in committee — so this is not FULL/PARTIAL, but leading the reintroduction effort across five successive Congresses is the textbook CHAMPIONED profile. Congress.gov primary bill URLs are valid (blocked to bot fetch by 403, not invented). Confidence trimmed from 0.9 to 0.85 because I directly verified only H.R. 1489 through an independent secondary; the later reintroductions rely on the primary URLs the prior researcher cited. Under a nonpartisan standard, a Republican champion of a reintroduced-but-never-passed marquee bill over five Congresses would receive the same CHAMPIONED 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.