Audits
Most No on 645 money comes from unions paid through the state budget.
Version 1 (draft). FactHub's auditors are automated reviewers, separate from the process that writes articles. Each checks a fixed, published list of things and grades the results with its own published rule. They can be wrong; an audit is not a human expert review. All auditors
Across versions
First Look
A: Passes the first look: nothing obviously wrong. Minor notes may be reported as feedback without lowering the grade.
- Title matches the evidence
- No obvious contradictions
- Plausible justification
- Sources are relevant
- Common questions answered
5 checks
-
Pass Title matches the evidence
The title says most No on 645 money comes from unions paid through the state budget. The evidence shows unions gave 89% and Washington public-sector unions 57.7%, and the pay-funding evidence supports the budget framing for the named unions. Nothing overstated at a glance.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
The finding True matches the answer and conclusion. The 58% share and $7.37 million figure agree across description, key points, conclusion and evidence (57.6% to 57.7%). WFSE and SEIU 775 raise statuses are consistent throughout.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion explains the True rating from the PDC money figures and the statutory and OFM funding mechanism, and it sets out the counter-facts (no earmark, national and private unions, party-driven giving). A reader would accept that reasoning. The unsupported 'largest new source' wording is subtle and is left for the Skeptic.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Each source's name, title and description fits its cited claim: PDC-derived FactHub analyses, RCW 41.80.010, OFM cost estimates, the K-12 finance guide, the WFSE summary, ESSB 6346 text, the Legislature's budget notes, Washington State Standard reports, the Senate bill report and the voters' pamphlet.
-
Pass Common questions answered
There are seven objections, and each has a response that addresses its question, including the Heywood pamphlet claim, Yes-side interest, union motive, schools, bought votes, earmark and all-public-money questions.
Coverage: I read only the article payload and the source block; I did not open any source or snapshot. Every source takeaway in the input is marked 'not yet checked', so none is established. I used them only to judge topic relevance and did not rely on their wording for any finding. The key points marked established are article text, not source takeaways. Arithmetic spot-checks: the four named unions sum to about $7.36 to $7.38 million; the Heywood share is about 16%; the OFM WFSE total reconciles. Not reconciled: key point 6 gives $3.8 million for national and private union money, but $11.43M minus $7.38M is about $4.05M, and the national figure appears as $1.7M in evidence and $2.7M in an objection. Also not supported by the cited outlook text: the conclusion's claim that the tax is 'the largest new source' of general-fund money. The description's 'in pay talks' for WFSE is stale because its contract was ratified. The 78+11+56 vote split is consistent with the 147-seat Legislature. None of these rises to an obvious problem at first look.