By ADAM

Adam Schiff is a California Senate hopeful and has been serving as a member of Congress since his election in 2000. He was born on June 24, 1967, in St. Louis, Missouri. Schiff graduated from the University of California at Berkeley with a Bachelor's degree in International Relations and received his Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School. Before entering politics, he worked as a federal prosecutor and served on the National Security Staff under President Clinton.

99%

The Daily's Verdict

This author is known for its high journalistic standards. The author strives to maintain neutrality and transparency in its reporting, and avoids conflicts of interest. The author has a reputation for accuracy and rarely gets contradicted on major discrepancies in its reporting.

Bias

100%

Examples:

  • Adam Schiff's campaign spokesperson claimed that his primary residence is in California, despite evidence suggesting he may also claim his Maryland home as a primary residence.

Conflicts of Interest

100%

Examples:

  • Schiff did not take an exemption on his home in Maryland while taking one on his California condo for a reduction in tax bill.

Contradictions

85%

Examples:

  • Local governments warned they would have lost billions of dollars in revenue if the measure had passed.
  • The measure also required all local tax increases to be approved by two-thirds of voters instead of a simple majority vote.

Deceptions

100%

Examples:

No current examples available.

Recent Articles

California Supreme Court Strikes Down Proposition 15, Thwarting Voter-Led Tax Reform

California Supreme Court Strikes Down Proposition 15, Thwarting Voter-Led Tax Reform

Broke On: Thursday, 20 June 2024 California's Supreme Court removed Proposition 15, the Taxpayer Protection Act, from the November 2024 ballot due to its revision of the state constitution. The measure aimed to require voter approval for state and local tax increases but was seen as upending government and threatening essential services. Over one million signatures were gathered, but opponents argued it would limit direct democracy. The ruling protected billions in approved revenue, with supporters hailing it as necessary protection and opponents criticizing the governor for blocking voter rights.