Coverage

Live Feed

What was claimed, and what we found. Not everything that was said — what has been through the process.

Last claim checked October 27 FEEDRSSJSON

Every verdict follows our published methodology — how we check claims.

There is no filter by person. A page narrowed to one individual is a claim history about that individual, and we do not build those.

No events listed
The publication's own words
Reported from somebody else
Said at an event
26 October
8:02 pm

The ratepayer protection act made sense to everybody in the house, but when it got to the Senate it was a political vote — voted against because they don't want to see the Republicans get a win

Opinion

Mark Baisley, at Colorado U.S. Senate General Election Debate (Colorado Sun)

8:02 pm
Why this verdict View evidenceHide evidence
Why we checked itSpecific claim about how a bill was voted on and the motivation behind the vote — the characterization of Senate voting behavior and the bill's passage/failure in the House is verifiable
What we foundThe factual premise — that the Ratepayer Protection Act passed the House near-unanimously (417–3) but was blocked in the Senate by Democrats on a 57–43 vote — is supported. However, the causal claim that Democrats voted against it specifically 'because they don't want to see Republicans get a win' is an inference about motive that cannot be verified as fact.
Claim page Dispute this claim