This is a really odd article. Snopes said "most false" and they seem to take issue with this. Snopes assessment seems right on and completely accurate with not much bias.
The campaigning was based on the existing debate of whether the stimulus check should be $600 or $2000. Biden and the Democrats were pushing for $2000.<p>There was never a camp that was pushing for BOTH a $600 check and a $2000 check.<p>They did not secure power in the White House and Senate in time to change the $600 check to a $2000 check. So instead they sent an additional $1400 check.<p>Would it have been ideal from their perspective to have gotten things done in time so that people only got one check? Sure. Do I view their inability to do so, especially in light of them making good on the total amount, as an indication of lying and misleading people? No.<p>Situations change. They made good on the total amount. You can claim that they technically lied because it took two checks instead of one, but I'd say at that point you're more worried about scoring points on technicalities than caring about the actual end result.<p>Calling fact checking dead because they chose to look at the whole picture, while still taking the time to note the technicalities, is incredibly short sighted or incredibly partisan.
It's very hard to follow this article, but I'm mostly upset that it's apparently legal to directly promise voters money if they vote for you. Talk about moral hazard.