Cantor's campaign spent more at steakhouses than Brat spent on his entire campaign.
This might not quite be the stat heard round the world, but politicos could not resist passing along one factoid that seemed to capture the improbability of House Majority Leader Eric Cantors, R-Va., stunning defeat in his primary race against Dave Brat. Cantor's campaign spent more at steak houses than Brat spent on his entire campaign, said Chuck Todd, host of MSNBCsThe Daily Rundown. Talk about a claim made for headlines and Twitter. Eric Cantor: Burned at the steakhouse, saidRolling Stonemagazine. High steaks politics and Wheres the beef popped up in the twittersphere. Theres no disputing the accuracy of the comparison, which first showed up in theNew York Times. According to campaign finance data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics,Cantor spent $168,000on fundraising events at three Virginia restaurants -- Bobby Vans Grill, Bobby Van's Steakhouse, and Blt Steak. Brat spent a little less than $123,000across the board for his campaign, according to the most recent campaign finance reports, which cover spending up until May 21, 2014. Overall, Cantor outspent Brat more than 40 to 1, according to available records, and still lost by 10 percentage points. Theres good reason for the collective astonishment -- this is a rare event. I can't think of any (case) in which the incumbent's spending advantage was so huge and he still lost, said Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California San Diego. Another political scientist, John Sides at George Washington University, has a database with about 9,100 House general election contests. Sides tracks which candidate won and which spent the most money. Being outspent was a clear disadvantage. In only 10 percent of races did the candidate who got outspent actually win, Sides said. Now, this concerns general elections, not primary contests like the one Cantor lost, but Sides said the pattern wouldnt change much. Money is a very tangible perk that comes with incumbency. The Center for Responsive Politics calculated the odds of a challenger beating an incumbent going back to 1998. In the best year, 2006, challengers who spent $1 million or less, like Brat, had a 1 percent chance of winning. In every other election, their odds were much worse. Our ruling Todd said that Cantor spent more at steakhouses than Brat did in his entire campaign. The latest campaign finance reports back that up. Cantor spent $168,000 on steakhouse dinnersto Brats $123,000 spent in the overall campaign. We rate the claim True.
On Nov. 28, 2011, the Democratic National Committee released two videos designed to paint Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as a serial flip-flopper. The shorter,30-second versiongives a taste of the attack, specifically citing abortion and health care, and directs viewers to a website with afour-minute versionthat offers alleged flip-flops on a variety of other issues. For this item, well check one of the claims from the four-minute version -- specifically, whether Romney has changed his position on signing a taxpayer protection pledge. We're looking at other aspects of the ad in separate items. Heres the relevant portion from the DNC ad: Screen text: Will not sign pledge Audio ofCandy Crowley: Republican Mitt Romney says he will not sign a no-new-taxes pledge. Screen text: Then he did Audio from Romney radio ad: Im proud to be the only major candidate for president to sign the tax pledge. The first clip refers to an announcement during Romneys 2002 gubernatorial campaign that he would not sign a pledge circulated by Citizens for Limited Taxation, a Massachusetts-based anti-tax group. Heres how theBoston Globecovered the news: In a break with Acting Governor Jane Swift and her GOP predecessors, Republican gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney is refusing to rule out tax increases and said yesterday he will not sign a no new taxes pledge, the newspaper wrote. Romney said that while he opposes all tax increases in principle, he will not make such a pledge in writing. The article went on to quote Romney saying, I am not in favor of increasing taxes. At this stage, I am inclined to make that position as clear as I can but not to enter into a written pledge of some kind, and that's true on this and other issues. TheGlobecited another comment by Romney that had been reported by theUnion-Newsof Springfield, Mass. I'm against tax increases, Romney told attendees of Western Massachusetts GOP meeting, according to theUnion-News. But I'm not intending to, at this stage, sign a document which would prevent me from being able to look specifically at the revenue needs of the Commonwealth. Barbara Anderson, an official with Citizens for Limited Taxation, was unhappy with Romney's refusal to sign, which came after hed met with her for half an hour. He's thinking like an independent businessman who doesn't sign pledges, she suggested to theGlobe. Meanwhile, theBoston Heraldquoted then Romney deputy campaign manager Eric Fehrnstrom saying, Mitt Romney doesn't have to sign a piece of paper to have a position on an issue. He's pledged to oppose any tax increase, he doesn't support them, his position on taxes is clear. In an interview with theGlobe, Fehrnstrom was even more dismissive, calling the pledge government by gimmickry, the newspaper reported. Put it all together and you have a candidate who didnt just decide against signing a pledge but who cast doubt on the propriety of such pledges in general. Now well fast-forward a few years, when Romney, having finished a term as governor of Massachusetts, was running for president. On Dec. 31, 2006, Romney became the first major candidate for the 2008 election to sign a taxpayer protection pledge offered by Americans for Tax Reform, the anti-tax group headed by Grover Norquist. In signing the pledge, Gov. Romney firmly commits himself in writing to fiscal discipline and economic common sense, Norquist said in anews release. Mitt Romney has told taxpayers in no uncertain terms that he plans to look out for their interests. Romney hardly signed the Norquist pledge covertly. On Jan. 4, 2007, he issued apress releasetouting his action, and on Oct. 5, 2007, he released aradio adspotlighting it. Thats where the DNC got the clip used in its ad. For years, conservative candidates for president signed their name on the dotted line pledging to oppose tax increases, Romney said in the ad. I'm Mitt Romney. I'm proud to be the only major candidate for president to sign the tax pledge. The others have not. I signed the tax pledge because I want everyone to know where I stand. We've got to get taxes down and grow our economy. I believe it's not fair that you have to pay taxes when you earn your money, when you save your money and when you die. That's why I'll kill the death tax once and for all and roll back tax rates across the board. And savings? When I'm president, for every middle class American, the new tax rate on your interest, dividends, and capital gains will be absolutely zero. I stood firm to roll back taxes as governor. I'll roll back taxes as president. In this case, then, Romney not only signed a written pledge but actively broadcast it to the electorate. Its worth noting that the two pledges are not exactly the same. One addressed the state context and one the federal context. The Massachusetts text is a pledge to ... all the people of this state, that I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes. The Norquist pledge, to which Romney is still a signatory, requires the signer to oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses  and oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates. Still, despite the differences in wording, we think the pledges are equivalent in their underlying requirements. Our ruling In 2002, Romney refused to make a pledge in writing on taxes. Four years later, he signed one and touted it as a selling point for his candidacy. In our book, thats a clear flip-flop. We rate the DNCs charge True. Humans have been leaving mementos on and within the final resting places of loved ones almost from the beginning of the species. Excavations of even the earliest graves uncover goods meant to serve the deceased in the next world, such as pottery, weapons, and beads. But what about coins being left on graves? The earliest known coins date to the late seventh century B.C., and as societies began embracing such monetary systems, the practice leaving of coins in the graves of citizens began as yet another way of equipping the dear departed for the afterlife. earliest Mythologies within certain cultures added specific purpose for coins being left with the dead. In Greek mythology, Charon, the ferryman of Hades, required payment for his services. A coin was therefore placed in the mouth of the dear departed to ensure he would ferry the deceased across the rivers Styx and Acheron and into the world of the dead rather than leave him to wander the shore for a hundred years. In England and the U.S., pennies were routinely placed on the closed eyes of the dead, yet the purpose for that practice was not clear  some say it was to keep the eyes of the corpse from flying open (even though the eyes, once shut by the person laying out the body, do not reopen). In these more recent days, coins and other small items are sometimes discovered on grave markers, be they plaques resting atop the sod or tombstones erected at the head of the burial plot. These small tokens are left by visitors for no greater purpose than to indicate that someone has visited that particular grave. It has long been a tradition among Jews, for example, to leave a small stone or pebble atop a headstone just to show that someone who cared had stopped by. Coins (especially pennies) are favored by others who wish to demonstrate that the deceased has not been forgotten and that instead his loved ones still visit him. Sometimes these small remembrances convey meaning specific to the person buried in that plot. For more than twenty years, every month someone has been leaving one Campbell's tomato soup can and a pocketful of change on the plain black granite tombstone that marks the grave of Andy Warhol. The soup can is easy to explain, given Warhol's iconic use of that commodity in his art, but the handful of change remains a bit of a mystery. In similar vein, visitors often leave pebbles, coins and maple leaf pins at the grave of Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, the man who replaced Canada's Red Ensign with the Maple Leaf flag. soup can Regarding the 'tradition' of soldiers leaving on the headstones of fallen comrades varying denominations of coins to denote their relationship with the deceased, the earliest reference to this practice we've found so far dates only to June 2009, when it appeared as a web site post. A version now commonly circulated in e-mail appears to have been drawn from it, albeit some changes have slipped in, such as "A buddy who served in the same outfit, or was with the deceased when he died, might leave a quarter" becoming "By leaving a quarter at the grave, you are telling the family that you were with the soldier when he was killed": COINS LEFT ON TOMBSTONES While visiting some cemeteries you may notice that headstones marking certain graves have coins on them, left by previous visitors to the grave. These coins have distinct meanings when left on the headstones of those who gave their life while serving in America's military, and these meanings vary depending on the denomination of coin. A coin left on a headstone or at the grave site is meant as a message to the deceased soldier's family that someone else has visited the grave to pay respect. Leaving a penny at the grave means simply that you visited. A nickel indicates that you and the deceased trained at boot camp together, while a dime means you served with him in some capacity. By leaving a quarter at the grave, you are telling the family that you were with the soldier when he was killed. According to tradition, the money left at graves in national cemeteries and state veterans cemeteries is eventually collected, and the funds are put toward maintaining the cemetery or paying burial costs for indigent veterans. In the US, this practice became common during the Vietnam war, due to the political divide in the country over the war; leaving a coin was seen as a more practical way to communicate that you had visited the grave than contacting the soldier's family, which could devolve into an uncomfortable argument over politics relating to the war. Some Vietnam veterans would leave coins as a "down payment" to buy their fallen comrades a beer or play a hand of cards when they would finally be reunited. The tradition of leaving coins on the headstones of military men and women can be traced to as far back as the Roman Empire. [Collected via Facebook, October 2015] While "Cleaning of the Stones" at the National Cemetery in Holly. I noticed a quarter placed on one of the stones. Later I also noticed a nickel placed on another stone. I was so touched with this that I took pictures.I googled about the coins, and found this out. I am very proud to share this. A coin left on a headstone lets the deceased soldiers family know that somebody stopped by to pay their respect. Leaving a penny means you visited. A nickel means that you and the deceased soldier trained at boot camp together. If you served with the soldier, you leave a dime. A quarter is very significant because it means that you were there when that soldier died.  Despite the claim of this tradition dating back to the days of the Roman Empire, there's no reason to suppose that it does. A coin might be placed in the mouth of a fallen Roman soldier (to get him across the River Styx), but the deceased's comrades would more likely have been expending any further coinage on a funeral banquet in his honor rather than interring it with his remains. Given the lack of documentation attesting to the origins and consistency of this 'tradition,' it is perhaps best regarded not as an actual common practice but instead as someone's idealized legend of what should be. Roman Empire Yet military folk do sometimes leave very special remembrances at the graves of deceased servicemen: challenge coins. These tokens identify their bearers as members of particular units and are prized and cherished by those to whom they have been given; thus any challenge coins found at gravesites were almost certainly left there by comrades-in-arms of the deceased. challenge coins It needs be mentioned that not only coins, medallions, and stones have been found on military headstones. In July 2013, a wife of a deceased serviceman discovered another woman's name on her husband's marker in place of her own. Edna Fielden, widow of Air Force Master Sergeant Billy Fielden (buried at Fort Logan Cemetery in Denver 25 years earlier) was shocked to discover the headstone bore the inscription "Dolores" over the legend "His Wife" when she brought her grandchildren to visit the grave. Update: In early 2021, coins on graves was the subject of a number of online advertisements. One of the ads read: "[Pics] Here's Why You Should Never, Ever Touch Coins Left On A Gravestone." Another claimed: "[Pics] If You See Coins Placed On A Gravestone, Here's What It Means." Both ads led to lengthy slideshow articles. Buchan, Rebecca.  "Toy Cars and Coins Taken from Toddler's Graveside."
  Aberdeen Press and Journal.  6 October 2011  (p. 3). Caswell, Emily.  "Ask Us: Pennies on Gravestones Reflect Greek Mythology."
  The [Manchester] Union Leader.  13 July 2011  (p. D36). Hamill, Sean.  "An Homage in Coins and Soup Cans."
  The International Herald Tribune.  27 February 2007  (p. 9). Hogan, Jim.  "Tokens of Remembrance."
  Los Angeles Times.  27 May 2013  (p. A15). Lang, Sarah.  "Coins Gone from Strong's Grave."
  The Lebanon Reporter [Indiana].  11 May 2011. McArthur, Douglas.  "A Historical Stroll Through Canada's Prime Ministerial Grave Sites."
  The Globe and Mail.  7 October 2000  (p. T4). NBC News.  "Military Widow Finds Another Woman's Name Engraved on Her Husband's Tombstone."
  18 June 2013. San Jose Mercury News.  "Fans Still Pay Tribute to Allison."
  The Globe and Mail.  14 July 1994  (p. F2). DidTravis Allen, arguably the most conservative candidate for California governor, donate campaign money to three of the states leading liberal Democrats? Thats the Republican-on-Republican attack levied by John Coxs campaign for governor in arecent TV adthat goes after Allen, an Orange County assemblyman whos positioned himself as a GOP populist. Heres the full text of the ad, which includes three attacks on Allen: Narrator: For Republicans, the race for governor is crystal clear: Theres conservative businessman John Cox, leading the opposition to Jerry Browns Sanctuary State and chairman of the initiative campaign to repeal the gas tax. Then theres career politician Travis Allen. He gave campaign donations to Jerry Brown. Gavin Newsom and Barbara Boxer. And on the floor vote, Allen refused to join Republicans opposing driver licenses for illegal aliens. The conservative choice is clear: John Cox for governor. The ad was paid for by John Cox for Governor 2018. Well examine the other two attacks on Allen in future fact-checks. In this piece, well focus on the claim he donated to top Democrats. Background on GOP rivals Recent polls show growing support for Coxs campaign for governor, less than a week after President Trumpendorsedthe San Diego businessman. A surveyreleased Wednesday nightfrom the Public Policy Institute of California shows Newsom, the states lieutenant governor, leading Cox, 25 percent to 19 percent. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was third, at 15 percent, followed by Allen with 11 percent,  State Treasurer John Chiang at 9 percent and former state schools chief Delaine Eastin with 6 percent. Coxand Allen have sparred at campaign events over who is the most conservative candidate. Theyve both criticized Californias Democratic leadership over the gas tax increase and sanctuary state protections. The top two candidates in the June 5 primary, regardless of party affiliation, will move on to the November runoff. Donating to Democrats? The ad accuses Allen of donating to three of the states top Democrats. The irony, of course, is that Allens run for governor has centered on criticizing those same politicians, particularly Brown and Newsom. We found clear evidence supporting the claim, though Coxs ad ignores the fact that the contributions took place nearly a decade ago, before Allen ran for elected office, and that he also donated to Republicans. Campaign finance records show that in October 2010, Allen donated $1,000 to Jerry Brown for Governor, through Wealth Strategies Group, his wealth management firm in Huntington Beach. In August 2010, Allen gave $100 to Gavin Newsom for Lieutenant Governor. And, in October 2010, he donated $250 to Barbara Boxer for Senate. SOURCE: Campaign finance records from the California Secretary of State'swebsite. Asked about this, a spokeswoman for Allens campaign said in an email that the contributions took place before Travis was an elected official, as a businessman, he purchased tickets to some events. A November 2017 Mercury-Newsarticlesummarized these and additional donations Allen made to Democrats in 2010 and 2011. He told the paper at that time: As a businessman I was invited to some events by friends, and I purchased tickets to these events. Attending these events, however, opened my eyes to the damage the Democrats were doing to California, and brought about my decision to do everything in my power to stop them, including running for public office. Similar claim In April 2016, PolitiFact California ratedMostly Truea similar claim about then Presidential candidate Donald Trump donating to Democrats. Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, at the time Trumps rival for the Republican presidential nomination, claimed Trump has given $12,000 to Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris. Campaign finance data showed the claim was accurate, though we noted Cruz left out that the donations took place long before Trump announced his run for president. The contribution to Jerry Brown took place in 2006, while the donations to the other Democrats took place in 2009, 2011 and 2013. Our ruling In a recentTV ad, John Coxs campaign for governor claimed rival GOP candidate Travis Allen donated to three of Californias top Democrats. Campaign records prove the claim, though the contributions took place a decade ago, before Allen entered politics. The statement is accurate but needs this clarification. We rate it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  Three former Fannie Mae executives served on Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign as chief economic advisors.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street. Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, 'Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that 'mistakes were made' and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years.' Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion. Raines left with a 'golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. The Government noted, 'The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner.' These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits. Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard 'was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a 'stable pattern of earnings' at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, 'Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,' On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million! Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million.' Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million. WHERE ARE THEY NOW? FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor TIM HOWARD? Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama JIM JOHNSON? Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee  IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE EXPERTISE - THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street? Origins:  When one of the hottest issues of a presidential campaign is the meltdown of the mortgage lending industry and the collapse of the economy, a candidate's having economic advisors on his staff who are strongly associated with the system and practices that helped create the current mess likely wouldn't sit well with the public.  That's the premise of the above-quoted e-mail, which claimed that three men formerly associated with the Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly known as "Fannie Mae") were serving as "chief economic advisors" with the 2008 presidential campaign of Barack Obama.  However, although some of these men had at least tangential connections to the Obama campaign at one time or another, none of them had ongoing roles with that campaign as chief economic advisors. Franklin Raines, who formerly headed the budget office for the Clinton administration, became the first black CEO of a Fortune 500 company when he took over at Fannie Mae" in 1999.  Raines,  who had earned $20 million in salary and bonuses from Fannie Mae in 2003, resigned from his CEO position in 2004 after regulators determined that the company had violated accounting rules and created an illusory $9 billion in past profit.   Raines had some dealings with the Obama campaign, but he never held any actual position within the campaign (much less as its "chief economic advisor"), and his involvement with it was not nearly as substantial as implied above.  As the Washington Post reported when a McCain campaign commercial attempted to link Raines with the Democratic candidate, the whole substance of the connection between the two men was that Raines "had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign" in which they talked about "general housing and economy issues."  reported commercial Franklin Raines' predecessor, James A. Johnson, (former chief of staff to Vice President Walter F. Mondale), was CEO of Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998. After Johnson left the company, regulators later discovered that Fannie Mae had engaged in fraudulent accounting practices in 1998 which manipulated its earnings so that executives could earn performance bonuses (up to $1.9 million in Johnson's case) they would not otherwise have been entitled to. discovered In May 2008, Senator Obama tapped James Johnson to be one member of a three-person panel tasked with vetting potential vice-presidential running mates.  Johnson (who was not serving as an economic advisor to the Obama campaign) resigned from that position shortly afterwards when news accounts reported that he had received more than $2 million in home loans at below average market rates from Countrywide Financial (a partner of Fannie Mae). Tim Howard, the former CFO (chief financial officer) of Fannie Mae, was caught up in the same accounting scandal that undid Franklin Raines, and (like Raines) resigned from the company in 2004.   We found no substantive connection between Tim Howard and the Obama campaign, however, much less any information supporting the claim that Howard was ever a "Chief Economic Advisor to Obama."   Last updated:  3 January 2012    Smith, Elliot Blair.  "Former Fannie Mae Execs May Face Investigation."   USA Today.  14 June 2006.    Superville, Darlene.  "Rise and Fall of Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO Franklin Raines."   San Diego Union-Tribune.  30 December 2004.    Weisman, Jonathan and David S. Hilzenrath.  "Obama's Choice of Insider Draws Fire."   The Washington Post.  11 June 2008  (p. A1).    The Washington Post.  "Linking Obama to Ex-Fannie Mae Chief Is a Stretch."   20 September 2008. Ronda Storms isNO Fiscal Conservative, claims a simple flier pushed by Storms opponent in the Republican primary for Hillsborough County property appraiser.The mailer from incumbent Rob Turner highlights property tax increases over Storms six-year tenure as a county commissioner as well as a notorious courthouse project that occurred during her time in the state Senate.As a Senator she voted to fund the Taj Mahal Courthouse. We Cant Afford Any More Storms.Ah, the Taj. The not-too-distant origins of Floridas finest courthouse serve as a cautionary tale about last-minute lawmaking and unscrutinized government spending.Is it fair to say Storms voted to fund the new courthouse of the 1st District Court of Appeal?Lets dive in.In her 2010investigative storyabout the facility,Tampa Bay Timessenior correspondent Lucy Morgan characterized the courthouse as a $48 million behemoth in which each judge will get a 60-inch LCD flat screen television in chambers (trimmed in mahogany), a private bathroom (featuring granite countertops) and a kitchen (complete with microwave and refrigerator).In a year of layoffs and cutbacks across the state, these touches of elegance were not appreciated.So how did the project eke past officials and watchdogs (press corps included)?Morgan compiled adetailed timelinestretching from a May 2004 meeting of the 1st DCA judges, in which they said they had outgrown their 23-year-old building, to December 2010, when the fresh, controversial structure was ready for move-in.A key moment in the story happened on the last day of the 2007 legislative session, a typically hectic time ripe for last-minute, undetected budget maneuvering. Tampa Sen. Victor Cristintroduced an amendmentto a 142-page transportation bill that contained a bond issue for $33.5 million for the courthouses construction. No senators asked about the bond issue, and it passed on a voice vote.The bill itself,HB 985, passed by a vote of 37-2. Storms, like most everyone,voted yes. It passed the House, then led by Marco Rubio, and was signed into law by Gov. Charlie Crist.Storms, interviewed by PolitiFact Florida, said she thought she was voting to refurbish a dilapidated courthouse.It certainly wasnt to build mahogany, she said. Anybody who was voting at that time was not voting for the Taj Mahal. What we were voting to do was taking care of the 1st DCA.Storms and Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, became two of theprojects most vocal criticsin the months following theTimesstory. At one point in a committee hearing, Storms quipped, We should insist on our pound of flesh and make them put the air at 80 in the summer and at 50 in the winter.As an aside, Storms said she probably voted against Crists amendment, which contained the bonding language, on an unrecorded voice vote out of a personal philosophy to protest unvetted, vendor-driven language affixed to bills in sessions closing days. (There is no record of voice votes, so we can't tell how Storms voted. )Fasano told us Turners attack is just not honest despite Storms' technical support of the transportation bill.You might as well blame every legislator that voted for it, he said, which would total 105 members.Thats the point, says Warren Weathers, who works for Turner. He recalled Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine, saying legislators share blame with the judges who pushed for the fine finishes.We didnt say she built it, Weathers said.Crist (of no relation to Floridas former governor) defended Storms in an interview.Ronda approving the budget for the court system and the construction budget for a new courthouse has nothing to do with the courts design, engineering and building, he said. It would be like saying her approval of the DMV budget holds her accountable for somebodys else driving record.Crists position is understandable. He says groups aligned with the tea party are using the Taj Mahal -- a moniker he hates -- against him in his re-election campaign for Hillsborough County Commission.Our rulingTurner says in a mailer that Storms voted to fund the Taj Mahal Courthouse. She indeed cast a vote for a transportation bill that included funding for the courthouse, that much is true. But there is some additional information we find missing from this attack.Namely, the courthouse money was inserted at the last minute into a larger bill without much explanation. The money, as far as most lawmakers knew, was to build a courthouse, not an opulent one. Once details of the Taj became known, Storms openly criticized the plan.We rate this claim Mostly True. On the Jan. 2, 2011, edition of NBC'sMeet the Press, Sen.-elect Pat Toomey, R-Pa., cited a striking statistic in urging the United States to lower its corporate tax rates.Asked by host David Gregory about possible areas where President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans can work together, Toomey suggested several areas, including taxes.I think tax policy is a possible area, one with plenty of landmines but plenty of opportunities,Toomey said. Simplify the code, lower rates. We should be lowering corporate tax rates because we have the highest in the world right now. (Later in the roundtable discussion, Yale Law School professor Stephen Carter repeated the statistic, but we'll check Toomey's quote here. )We wondered whether the U.S. really has the highest corporate tax rates in the world.Using the most straightforward definition of corporate tax rates, Toomey is right. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 32 large, industrialized democracies,ranksthe combined corporate income tax rate in its member nations. That means the highest tax bracket for general corporate income, excluding taxes levied on specific products or services.For 2010, the U.S ranks second to Japan by a fraction of a percentage point -- 39.54 percent for Japan to 39.21 percent for the U.S. But that figure is already outdated: Japan has recently moved to cut its rate for 2011 by 5 percentage points, leaving the U.S. with the highest corporate tax rate among OECD nations.But before we declare Toomey's statement True, let's dig a little deeper.The OECD rate is the statutory rate -- that is, the top corporate tax rate on the books. But many companies pay considerably less than that, due to deductions and other exclusions. Adjusting for these factors produces a statistic called the effective tax rate.The World Bankhas assembled datafrom 183 nations and made a series of statistical adjustments to produce a full international comparison of effective tax rates. By this measurement, the U.S. rate is considerably lower than the published rate -- 27.6 percent. But in a comparative sense, that's still pretty high: Among larger international economies, only Japan, New Zealand and Thailand produced a higher effective rate in the World Bank study. And Japan's number should fall by the time next year's study comes out.The World Bank also produces another -- and broader -- statistic. This measure factors in not only the corporate profit tax but also a range of other taxes paid by businesses, including the cost of employee taxes borne by the employer. When the World Bank ranked countries from the lowest level of taxes to the highest, the U.S. ranked 124th out of 183 -- meaning corporate taxes were relatively high. A number of other large and/or democratic countries were higher, including Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Spain and Sweden.This last measure provides a wider snapshot of U.S. tax policy toward businesses, but it also introduces some complications. Factoring in the employer-paid portion of labor taxes makes the corporate tax rate seem higher in countries that provide higher benefits such as pensions or health care through business taxes, while making the rate seem lower for countries that provide less generous benefits through the tax code. So making apples-to-apples comparisons can be tricky.There's also broader context that Toomey doesn't get into.In a previous item, we noted that when all taxes, including those such as personal income taxes and property taxes -- not just corporate taxes -- are taken into account and compared to gross domestic product, the U.S. doesn't rank near the top of the OECD table in total tax burden.Still, if you rate Toomey on his specific wording by looking at corporate tax rates, he's right that the U.S. does now have the highest corporate tax rates on the books, at least among the biggest industrialized democracies, which is most economists' typical yardstick. So we rate his statement Mostly True. As the 2018 campaign comes to a close, the political arm of the Environmental Defense Fund has sent a mailer to homes in Texas 7th Congressional District saying that John Culberson, a Republican congressman, is wrong for Houston. As partial proof, it said he was caught using campaign cash on collectibles, including Civil War memorabilia and fossils. Caught is an interesting word, since the nine-term incumbent, now challenged by Democrat Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, disclosed the memorabilia purchases, which he says he gave as gifts from his campaign. As for the fossils, his campaign insisted there were no such purchases -- and said it only bought books and maps from a business that happens to also sell fossils. Critics have made a false assumption, the Culberson campaign told us initially. Well look at both parts of the claim but will give away a bit of what we found right here: He bought fossil replicas. If you wonder why an environment group would care about fossils and Culberson, the group noted that Culberson said in late summer that his purchases were for research into such things as paleoclimatology, or the study of climates before instrumental records were widely available, to help him better understand climate change. Environmental Defense Fund Action says that for all this studying, Culberson still refuses to accept scientific research on the matter. Culberson has said humans played a role in climate change but, ashe toldthe Los Angeles Times in 2015,  We just dont have enough data or accurate data to say with certainty what that effect has been. Lets take fossils first. The congressmans critics based their claim on a mention in a 2012 campaign finance report that Culbersons campaign made two purchases from a South Dakota organization, the Black Hills Institute of Geological Research. The institute sells fossils, replicas and other things, and Culberson spent $309.66 altogether there, Federal Election Commission records show. The purchase was part of a broader set of Culberson expenses being questioned by Texas Democrats -- a set of questions we are not addressing fully here because we are looking specifically at campaign ads and claims. But for a bit of perspective, theHouston Chroniclewrote in August that Texas Democrats were challenging nearly $50,000 in Culberson campaign spending since 2004. Focusing just on fossils, PolitiFact asked Culbersons campaign what it bought from the Black Hills Institute. We were told it bought books and maps, not fossils, the same explanation the campaign has given since August. Only in politics does a person get attacked for trying to be better at their job, Culberson campaign spokeswoman Catherine Kelly said. The mailer from the Environmental Defense Action Fund is factually wrong. The congressman never bought fossils with campaign contributions and all other purchases are acceptable under House and FEC rules. Culberson is a voracious reader, and has spent thousands of dollars from his campaign account for books and materials, including some on paleoclimatology, that his campaign says were related to his job. In just the 2011-12 campaign season, Culbsersons campaign spent $9,848 on research or research materials, most of it from vendors such as Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble, FEC records reviewed by PolitiFact show. Culberson chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees spending on science and such agencies as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The research material helps him better understand the changing levels of carbon dioxide in the climate, his campaign says. Asked about records that would show he was buying books and maps, not fossils, from the Black Hills Institute, his campaign said the 2012 records for such specific purchases no longer exist. PolitFact, however, called the Black Hills Institute. They pulled the invoices from Culberson's two separate orders and sent us copies. This is what the campaign paid for, excluding shipping charges: Three large wall charts showing extensive histories of the Earth and matter, dating back 4.5 billion years. The charts have columns showing tectonic maps, changes in the earth such as mountain formation, major volcanic eruptions, glacial epochs, craters from asteroids and comets and extensive information on fossils, invertebrates and vertebrate lifeforms, as well as their extinction. These cost $19.95 apiece. One desktop model of a Triceratops. It cost $84.05. Two large -- 4.5 inches -- fossil replicas of a Tyrannosaurus Rex tooth. Each cost $40. The FEC gives pretty wide latitude to the purchase of books and other materials that a candidate or officeholder might use in his or her official capacity, Brendan Fischer, an expert on campaign finance law at the Campaign Legal Center, told us. But what about a Triceratops model and replicas of a Tyrannosaurus Rex tooth fossil? Id like to hear their explanation for it, he said. Its hard to see how it would pertain to their official duties. We told the campaign what we found, and it asked what our proof was. So we sent the campaign the invoices for the congressmans purchases. The response from Kelly, the spokeswoman: The invoices confirm that the congressman never bought actual fossils, and every purchase from the Black Hills Institute is considered acceptable under House and FEC rules. Asked why the congressman bought the replicas and the model at all, Kelly said, While these purchases were more than six years ago and now being used as part of a coordinated partisan hit job, the congressman believes these particular purchases were gifts, which is completely acceptable under FEC and House rules. The mailer from Environmental Defense Fund Action also mentioned Culbersons use of campaign money to buy collectibles and Civil War memorabilia. This, too, originated from the Democrats complaint referenced in the Houston Chronicle. Culberson is a Civil War history buff, collector and sometime-seller of memorabilia. But when it comes to his campaign funds, the purchases were for items such as stamps and coins the congressman got in order to give out as gifts, his campaign said. Congress members frequently use campaign money to buy gifts for constituents and volunteers, and the Culberson campaign said the Texas Republican was doing nothing different from what House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has done when buying white orchids. The FEC allows candidates and officeholders to buy and give as gifts items of nominal value as long as they are not given to family members, Fischer said. FEC reports show only what a candidate or officeholder pays, not the value of the each item. For example, in 2014, Culbersons campaign spent $3,631 on coins from an antique coin seller. In 2009 and 2010, the campaign spent $4,181 on antiques and coins for gifts, includinghat stars(an emblem worn on soldiers hats) and Texas Centennial and Republic of Texas coins, FEC records show. Culbersons campaign said the value of each coin was about $25, and the value of stamps was about $10. For a broader view, we downloaded FEC data showing all federal candidate purchases -- those for everyone with a federal campaign account -- of items listed as gifts just since January 2017. The total reached $1.8 million, for everything from model airplanes to a quilt to gift baskets. Environmental Defense Fund Action said Texas U.S. Rep. John Culberson was caught using campaign cash on collectibles, including Civil War memorabilia and fossils. Caught seemed strong to us at first, given the campaigns denials. But with a phone call and email, it turned out that Culberson had in fact used campaign funds -- not for fossils, but for replicas and a desktop model. Our ruling comes down to perspective. The mailers spin seemed a little strong at first, especially knowing that gift purchases, whether for Civil War trinkets or not, are allowable if considered of nominal value. But the insistence of the campaign that Culberson did not buy fossils -- and that he had only bought books and maps -- is a factor as well. OK, he didnt buy fossils. He bought fossil replicas. We rate the claim Mostly True. Former Gov. Jeb Bush has resurrected an infamous moniker from his days in Tallahassee on the campaign trail in an attempt to show he is the godfather of fiscal conservatism. During ameeting with business leaders in Portsmouth, N.H., on May 20, 2015, Bush pointed out he was well-known for using the line-item veto at his disposal as governor. They called me Veto Corleone, which was something I was quite proud of, Bush said, citing a reference to Marlon Brandos character inThe Godfather. He added that he vetoed 2,500 separate line items totaling $2 billion over his eight years. Bush has brought out that anecdote several times during the run-up to a presidential campaign, implying he would again focus on cutting wasteful spending. We wondered if he was accurate in claiming that nickname. We made our own inquiries and found that yes, pork projects really did sleep with the fishes. Offers hecouldrefuse Bush came into office in 1999 vowing to use his line-item veto on state spending he didnt like, and he followed through with a vengeance. He also wanted the state to focus on building reserves. That first year, he shocked lawmakers by slashing $313 million out of the $48.6 billion budget approved by the Legislature. It wasmore than double the previous veto recordof $150 million set by Republican Gov. Bob Martinez in 1988. The Senate was so angry about the cuts, theysued Bush over his partial vetoof funding for an extended school year. The Florida Supreme Court eventually ruled Bush defied the state Constitution by cutting $16 million out of a $40 million appropriation to keep schools open longer. They said he either had to cut all of the program or none of it. Media reports said John Thrasher, then speaker of the House, dubbed Bush Veto Corleone after the fictional mafia don (spelled Vito Corleone) for his liberal use of the power. Thrasher, who is now president of Florida State University, confirmed to PolitiFact Florida that he coined the nickname, which seemed to be something of a friendly dig. Thrashers collegial relationship with Bush was apparent in 2000, when Thrasher brought the budget to Bushs office whilewearing a white lab coat and a stethoscopeto make sure the governor has a heart. Bush answered by approving a couple of Thrashers pet projects, then chopping another $313.7 million out of appropriations. Heres a look at how much Bush vetoed from each years budget: Year Total state budget Amount Bush vetoed 1999 $48.6 billion $313 million* 2000 $51 billion $313.7 million 2001 $48.3 billion $288.8 million 2002 $50.4 billion $107 million 2003 $53.5 billion $33 million 2004 $57.3 billion $349 million 2005 $64.7 billion $180 million 2006 $73.9 billion $448.7 million * The state Supreme Court ruled a $16 million veto in 1999 unconstitutional. The first year of Bushs second term, in 2003, Bush cut a low of $33 million, but $7.2 million of that wasfunding for high-speed rail. Bush later led an effort to repeal a constitutional amendment requiring the creation of high-speed rail transit in the state. Bush also saved the most for last, hacking $448.7 million out of the 2006 budget, including a university tuition increase, spending on parks and police vehicles, as well as job training and education programs. That year state spending was up to $73.9 billion, a 52 percent increase from his first year in office. It's never easy, Bushsaid in 2006. You always hurt people's feelings. I don't enjoy that. And I'm always surprised that people are surprised. I've been consistent. There should be no surprises. And the people who really follow the budget knew that. We should note that if Bush wins the presidency, he likely wont get to whack as much. A president doesnt have a line-item veto and has to either accept or reject an entire piece of legislation. Our ruling Bush said they called me Veto Corleone as governor for his frequent use of the line-item veto. He did have a fondness for ruthlessly slashing projects he deemed wasteful or not in line with his agenda. Thrasher confirmed he nicknamed the governor after the fictional mobster. This is one favor we grant Bush. We rate the statement True. In the fall of 2021, a series of videos started circulating on social media that supposedly showed a charitable campaign from Germany encouraging donations to feed hungry Americans. One posting of this claim on TikTok racked up more than 9 million views: TikTok racked up more than 9 million views   While many social media users claimed that this "Great Nations Eat" campaign had been produced in Germany (some claimed China) in an effort to raise funds to feed hungry Americans, this video actually originated in the United States. This video comes from a 2015 campaign produced by the American charity Share Our Strength. The "Great Nations Eat" campaign was created by Share Our Strength and the creative agency BBG (Bartle Bogle Hegarty). In a news release, the group writes that it purposefully mirrored the public service announcements (PSAs) that often air in the United States to raise money to feed people in developing countries in an attempt to evoke an emotional reaction from American audiences.  Great Nations Eat Share Our Strength Billy Shore, CEO and founder of Share Our Strength, told Fast Company in 2015: Fast Company This was really to try to think a little more disruptively to get peoples attention, to go right to the heart of the issue that people are not aware hunger is a problem in the United States ... Id say that historically theres been a genre of media around hunger that looks kind of alikestories of kids in rural areas like Appalachia or Alabama ... Those stories are important and compelling, but they all have the same kind of message. The idea was to do something different, and point out that America cant be great on an empty stomachreally tap into this notion that it has to do with our strength as a nation, as a people, as a society. Its not just about these childrenas important as that isbut it really impacts all of us. The non-profit wrote in a news release at the time of the campaign's debut: news release All of the advertising for the Great Nations Eat launch was created by the award-winning creative agency, BBH (Bartle Bogle Hegarty) New York. As the goal of the campaign was first and foremost awareness, the creative allows for the facts to evoke the emotion. The campaign PSAs use an unconventional approach to contrast the problem of hunger in America versus other countries, surprising viewers with the facts. While these ads were not actually produced in China, Germany, or Slovenia, the message in these ads  that millions of people in the United States are food insecure  is true. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), more than 10% of U.S. households (which amounts to about 38.3 million people) were food insecure in 2020. The USDA writes: writes Food insecure  At times during the year, these households were uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food. Food-insecure households include those with low food security and very low food security. 10.5 percent (13.8 million) of U.S. households were food insecure at some time during 2020.Unchanged from 10.5 percent in 2019. [...] 38.3 million people lived in food-insecure households. Here is one of the American-produced "Great Nations Eat" ads that is presented as if China made this ad to feed hungry Americans:  Here's another version of this ad "from Germany":  Millions of Americans truly struggle with hunger. While these ads were created to make it seem as if China, Germany, and other countries had released PSAs to feed hungry Americans, these videos were actually produced by an American charity and were designed to play on the tropes of similar PSAs. Anders Anglesey. German-Language Ad Asking to Help Feed Poor Americans Goes Viral. Newsweek, 9 Nov. 2021, https://www.newsweek.com/german-ad-asking-feed-americans-goes-viral-tiktok-1647405. Great Nations Eat Launches Unprecedented Billion Impression Media Campaign in 2015 to Transform the Conversation Around Hunger in America. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/great-nations-eat-launches-unprecedented-billion-impression-media-campaign-in-2015-to-transform-the-conversation-around-hunger-in-america-300104454.html. Accessed 10 Nov. 2021. Ha, Thu-Huong. Video: What If Other Countries Saw the Same PSAs about Hungry Americans That Americans See about Them? Quartz, https://qz.com/473786/video-what-if-other-countries-saw-the-same-psas-about-hungry-americans-that-americans-see-about-them/. Accessed 10 Nov. 2021. Peters, Adele. These Anti-Hunger Ads Ask People In Other Countries To Donate To Help Feed Americans. Fast Company, 15 July 2015, https://www.fastcompany.com/3048452/these-anti-hunger-ads-ask-people-in-other-countries-to-donate-to-help-feed-americans. Silva, Christianna. Food Insecurity In The U.S. By The Numbers. NPR, 27 Sept. 2020. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/912486921/food-insecurity-in-the-u-s-by-the-numbers. USDA ERS - Key Statistics & Graphics. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx. Accessed 10 Nov. 2021. On 3 May 2016, web site the Washington Free Beacon published an article provocativelytitled "Clinton Campaign Made Payments to Hard Drive and Document Destruction Company" (and subtitled "Payments could have purchased destruction of 14 hard drives"). The article reported that the Hillary Clinton campaign made payments totaling $187 to a document destruction company (American Document Destruction, Inc.) in February and March of 2016. The article implied (without directly stating) that the Clinton campaign might have spent the funds on destroying disk drives involved in the controversy surrounding Clinton's use of private, home-based servers and accounts for official business she conducted while serving as U.S. secretary of state: controversy The Hillary Clinton campaign made multiple payments to a company that specializes in hard drive and document destruction, campaign finance records show. The payments, which were recorded in February and March of 2016, went to the Nevada-based American Document Destruction, Inc., which claims expertise in destroying hard drives or anything else that a hard drive can come from. Our hard drive destruction procedures take place either at your site or at our secure facility in Sparks, NV, the companys website states. This decision is yours to decide based on cost and convenience to you. In either situation, the hard drive will be destroyed by a shredding. Nowhere did the Washington Free Beacon article offer any evidence that the services provided by American Document Destruction, Inc. to the Clinton campaign involved the destruction of hard drives or data from the private server she used while serving as secretary as state. In fact, the article didn't even offer any evidence that the provided services involved the destruction of hard drives at all (rather than paper documents). It simply noted that the Clinton campaign paid American Document Destruction, Inc. an amount of money that would have covered the costs of destroying 14 hard drives or shredding 37.4 cubic feet of paper (or, presumably, some combination of the two). A follow-up article from another news outletreported that Clinton's campaign also paid $50 to Shredco, a company that provides safe disposal of paper documents. outlet It's extremely unlikely either of these companies were involved in destroying material related to Clinton's use of a private e-mail server, for a number of reasons. First of all, the expenditures were openly reported to the Federal Election Commission, an unlikely move for a campaign furtively involved in destroying evidence relating to a federal investigation:     Second, anyone seeking to destroy sensitive information related to a high-level federal investigation probably wouldn't trust the task to businesses who charged only a few hundred dollars for the service, rather than to much more expensive (and presumably more private and secure) outfits. Moreover, even though Bernie Sanders' campaign wasn't embroiled in an e-mail controversy, his campaign paid nearly three times as much as Clinton's did for similar services: paid    Former Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz also contracted for shredding services in the same timeframe: timeframe    Paying for data destruction services is hardly suspect for an organization that processes thousands of donations each month, as the Hillary Clinton campaign does. Personal information from donors (such as credit card numbers) would, if printed or stored on hard drives, need to be securely destroyed to protect those donors. And given Bernie Sanders' repeated insistence that the average donation made to his campaign is $27, it seems reasonablethat his organization would also be contracting for similar services and paying for a higher volume of shreddable transactions than the Clinton campaign.  Bier, Jeryl.  "Hillary Clinton Campaign Paid Second Document Destruction Company."
The Weekly Standard.  5 May 2016. Schmidt, Michael S.  "Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules."
The New York Times.  2 March 2015. Schoffstall, Joe.  "Clinton Campaign Made Payments to Hard Drive Aand Document Destruction Company."
The Washington Free Beacon.  3 May 2016. Federal Election Commission.  "Selected Presidential Reports for the 2016 March Monthly."
March 2016.