IA Fact CheckIowa 2026 · independent source reviewCandidates

Methodology

What the heat gauge means

The thermometer measures one thing: the gap between the wording of a political claim and what the cited evidence actually establishes. It is not a scientific lie detector and it does not claim to know whether a speaker intended to mislead.

Supported criticismThe central factual assertion is substantially supported by the cited record.
Mostly supportedThe basic assertion is supported, but some context changes how a reasonable reader may understand it.
Context neededA real event, quote, vote, or document exists, but a broader implication requires additional evidence.
Materially misleadingThe claim relies on a real fact but stretches it into a materially broader conclusion than the evidence supports.
Unsupported / unprovenThe cited record does not establish the central factual assertion, or the assertion is presented without evidence sufficient to establish it.
Political labelWords such as “extreme,” “radical,” or “liberal” are ideological judgments without an objective factual yardstick. The site shows the underlying positions instead.

The same test is applied to every claim

  1. Identify the actual allegation. Link to the ad, party statement, article, post, or other source making it.
  2. Find the underlying record. Prefer bill text, roll calls, agency documents, audits, court records, official reports, or contemporaneous video.
  3. Separate fact from inference. A vote against a large bill, for example, proves opposition to the bill as a package; it does not automatically establish every motive assigned to that vote.
  4. Restore omitted context. Show relevant language, chronology, surrounding provisions, or the full subject of a quotation.
  5. Preserve fair criticism. If part of an attack is supported, the page says so rather than treating the whole thing as false.

Why the evidence trail deliberately mixes sources

A reader should not have to trust this site’s politics to audit its conclusion. Claim cards therefore label sources by role, and the expanded evidence view explains what each source is being used to establish.

  • Primary record: legislation, vote journals, audits, agency documents, government reports, court materials, and other direct records. These carry the most weight for what officially happened.
  • Independent reporting: journalism and fact-checking used for chronology, interviews, quotations, and outside context. Where practical, more than one outlet or a source not favorable to the candidate is included.
  • Claim source: Republican Party, opposing campaign, NRCC/RGA or similar material. These sources are valuable for proving what was actually alleged; they are not treated as independent proof of their own allegation.
  • Candidate/campaign: the candidate’s biography, explanation, or policy statement. These are treated as the candidate’s own assertions and labeled accordingly, not as independent validation.

Source diversity is visible, not implied

Every expanded claim shows the number of linked sources and the source classes represented. A partisan source does not become “bad evidence” merely because it is partisan: it may be the best evidence of the exact attack. Likewise, a campaign statement is useful for the candidate’s explanation but should not, by itself, prove that explanation is correct. The goal is to let different kinds of sources check one another.

Colors on candidate profiles

Green outlines identify Iowa state offices. Blue outlines identify federal offices. Those colors are navigational only. They do not indicate the site’s opinion of a candidate or race.

No artificial balance

The site does not create a claim card simply so every candidate has the same number. If a specific accusation has not been identified and sourced well enough to review, the candidate profile says so.

Research snapshot: base content reviewed through August 9, 2026. Campaign claims and candidate information can change, so direct source links remain part of every review.