Is there evidence of racial bias in tax-evasion prosecutions shown in this meme?
One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks:  However, the "Tax Racism" meme offered examples  not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion  so widely spaced in time and so differing in circumstances as to be non-useful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity: investigation Washington, D.C., June 4, 2003 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on Dec. 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, at the time a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest). settled Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue  the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. dispute By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed "Public Enemy No. 1" after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, however, so they took what was then a novel tack: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money. He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. conviction In a literal sense Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected (and the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities). Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons  maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them). prosecution At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud in order to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who  along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley  owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. portfolio Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that We dont pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes, fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes: tax evader Some of [Helmsley's] luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987 a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn, a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsleys bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt  the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Where along the tax-evader spectrum between "legitimate dispute" and "willful tax fraud" civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is a difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the monies owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances as well liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though: contended Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the I.R.S. that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he said, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller: contested During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was current on all taxes he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. Were talking about old taxes, he said, adding: Were not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if Im not paying taxes while Im doing whatever Im doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true. The accuracy of Mr. Sharptons assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharptons assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. tax evasion Buettner, Russ.  "Al Sharpton Criticizes New York Times Report on Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  19 November 2014. Buettner, Russ.  "As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  18 November 2014. Nemyaug, Enid.  "Leona Helmsley, Hotel Queen, Dies at 87."
  The New York Times.  20 August 2007. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "Al Capone Sentenced to Prison for Tax Evasion on This Day in 1931."
  Forbes.com.  17 October 2018. Wood, Robert W.  "10 Notorious Tax Cheats: Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley Proved Little People Can Put You in Jail."
  Forbes.com.  17 April 2015. Wood, Robert W.  "Lessons From Rev. Al Sharpton's $4.5 Million Tax Bill."
  Forbes.com.  19 November 2014. Department of Justice -- Office of Public Affairs.  "Tax Crime Does Not Pay."
  10 April 2018. Johnson, Carrie.  "Stewart to Pay $195,000 in Settlement of Civil Suit."
  The Washington Post.  8 August 2006. Kratsas, Gabrielle.  "13 Infamous Tax Cheaters."
  USA Today.  28 February 2014.
In February 2020, a variation of a familiar scam circulated on Facebook. The dubious website airalaskaoffer.com offered users a "chance to get 2 free tickets of Alaska Air." To enter, users had to complete survey questions.   Alaska Airlines was quick to call out the scam on its Facebook page, offering advice on how to spot real offers: call out advice  As if the poor writing on the bogus offer weren't enough of a red flag, we've seen numerous scams like this one before. Save the company name, it was practically a carbon copy of previous anniversary scams. As we previously reported: this one before These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook share buttons and post comments to the scammers site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two Reward Offers (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards). Claim:  Photographs show female hunters posing with the bodies of giraffes they've killed. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2015] Facebook has recently been inundated with pictures of women hunters posed with dead giraffes. Are they fake or real?  Origins:  Earlier this year as we were trekking through Africa, we passed through Tanzania to investigate some animal-related legends and visit a place that has loomed large in our imaginations ever since we were children: the Serengeti. It was everything we imagined it to be, and more: endless herds of zebra and buffalo stretching across the plains  as far as the eye could see, prides of lions snoozing under trees, elephants with their calves parading across our path, rhinoceros slowly lumbering along the landscape, huge pools in which hundreds of hippos lazed to escape the midday sun, as well aswarthogs, mongooses, hyenas, impala, gazelles, dik-diks, hyrax, and baboons. Tour operators in that part of the world typically tout that their clients will have an opportunity to view the "Big Five" of African wildlife: the African lion, the African elephant, the Cape buffalo, the African leopard, and the rhinoceros (black or white).  We were fortunate enough to see all of these creatures (and more), and to be able to shoot them from up close  with cameras only  includingthe one animal that's hardest to miss:  We were somewhat surprised to learn during our trip that the term "Big Five" derives not from the world of tourism (which has co-opted it), but from the world of big-game hunting: it is said to encompass the five African animals most difficult to hunt on foot.  We were more surprised to learn that, despite widespread public perception that the "Big Five" (and most other large African wildlife) are all endangered and/or protected by law, there are very few African animals that cannot be legally hunted somewhere on that continent. We were reminded of our experience in April 2015, when comedian Ricky Gervais posted to his Facebook page a photograph purportedly showing a female hunter posing in recline alongside the carcass of a giraffe she had just killed, along with his rumination about why someone would "want to kill a beautiful animal and then lie next to it smiling":  The comedian didn't provide much background information in his Facebook post, which led many viewers to speculate about the authenticity of the photo. Was the scene staged with a giraffe that died from other causes?  Was the giraffe put down for humane reasons? Was the image Photoshopped?  The photograph that Gervais shared has originally appeared on the website RebeccaFrancis.com in August 2010. Although that site did not provide any specific information about that particular image, the site is full of pictures of animals killed in African big game hunts, including lions, zebras, and giraffes. Francis addressed the controversy of being a "big game hunter" in a blog entitled "The True Circle of Hunting": RebeccaFrancis.com pictures As a hunter, I am constantly under fire and constantly being labeled a "trophy hunter". What is a trophy hunter?  I have put a great deal of thought into the meaning of this.  In the dictionary the literal meaning is simply put: "Trophy hunting is the selective hunting of wild game animals".  In that case, I AM A TROPHY HUNTER.   There is no question that I am extremely selective about the animals I hunt.   I feel it is absolutely necessary to hunt older and more mature animals.  In a lot of cases, that puts that animal past it's breeding prime and the animal can actually be kicked out of the herd and replaced with a younger, stronger male to introduce new genetics into the gene pool. Consequently, that animal can not only be bullied by the new male, but also be left all alone to suffer until its inevitable death. I have no desire to shoot an animal, just to shoot it.  I admire, respect, and love watching these beautiful creatures. Ricky Gervais subsequently posted a second photograph on his Facebook page of a female hunter posing with a dead giraffe :  While the specific origins of this photograph are unknown to us, the earliest incarnation we've found appears to have originated with the now-defunct Facebook page of one "Ivy Swanepol":  A similar photograph of a grinning woman posing astride a dead giraffe while holding a high-powered rifle in her hands generated online controversy in March 2014 when it was posted to the Facebook page of Koeshall's World Hunting Adventures taxidermy shop in Wisconsin along with a caption  "We took Shelley out this morning with the thoughts of maybe getting a giraffe. We found this big bull feeding in the trees, and Shelley put 2 good shots in him before he went down. Big mature bull. We have it all here, and we want to share it with YOU": posted  Regardless of who is pictured in these photographs, there is no good reason to believe that they are not genuine or do not represent what they appear to depict, as giraffes are indeed one of the trophy animals frequently targeted in African big game hunts. Big Game Hunting Adventures of South Africa, for instance, offers safaris on which hunters can bag (among other animals)baboons, hyenas, buffalo, elephants, giraffe, hippos, impala, leopards, lions, warthogs, wildebeest, and zebras.   safaris Although many animal lovers and wildlife protection groups may decry African big game hunts, they are perfectly legal in places such as South Africa.  Moreover, some conservationists have argued that this form of tourism actually helps their cause by providing much-needed revenue for the preservation of more endangered species in the region: South Africa has a tourism industry that permits people to hunt big game animals such as the elephant, rhinoceros and lion.  Many people object to this blood sport.  But some argue that hunting big game animals creates income needed to save the country's population of big animals. It is legal in some African countries to hunt big game.  The business brings in a lot of money.  A ten-day 'elephant package' could cost U.S. $36,000.  Hunting a rhinoceros can cost U.S. $100,000. The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has strong words against what it calls the "needless killing of endangered species for trophies."  The organization says big game hunting is not sustainable, meaning it cannot be supported over a long period of time.  The group also says it provides only short-term economic gains, hurts the area's environmental balance and is morally wrong. But not all conservationists agree.  Some argue trophy hunting may be helping Africa's wildlife.  Professor John Hanks is the former head of the World Wide Fund for Nature in South Africa.  He says tourism and donations do not provide the billions of dollar needed. "I think trophy hunting in South Africa is really absolutely essential if we are going to look for long-term future for rhinos in the whole of Africa ... there's hardly a single country anywhere that can afford to run its national parks as they should be run ... Here we are in South Africa, one of the richest countries in the continent, Kruger Park has a million visitors a year and they still cannot afford to defend the rhinos." The hunting industry in South Africa brings in more than $744 million each year.  The industry employs about 70,000 people.  And about 9,000 trophy hunters travel to South Africa every year.  Ninety percent of them come from the United States.  In 2012, foreign hunters spent $115 million in South Africa.  Trophy hunting is the most profitable form of commercial land use in the country. Herman Meyeridricks is the president of the Professional Hunters' Association of South Africa.  He argues that legal hunting is important to wildlife protection. "The only way there will be incentive for those landowners to protect and keep on investing in rhino is if they have an economic value. They can only have an economic value if there is an end-user that is willing to pay for that, and that is the trophy hunter." One can find plenty of photographs of male big game hunters posing with taken giraffes online, but those images apparently don't stir up as much widespread outrage as similar pictures showing female hunters. photographs Last updated:  14 April 2015    Parker, Gilliam.  "Trophy Hunting Is Big Business in South Africa."   VOA.  16 August 2014. FACT CHECK:  Did President Obama order that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people?  Claim:   President Obama ordered "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people.   MOSTLY  WHAT'S :   President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging federal agencies to more frequently use behavioral research insights in the creation and adoption of policy.     WHAT'S :  President Obama ordered that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on American citizens; President Obama specifically directed agencies to implement any form of behavioral insight usage; the word "experiment" appeared anywhere in the Executive Order. Example:    [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] President Barry ORDERS BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS ON AMERICAN PUBLIC!! https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3 https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3  TheFightingIrishDame (@TheIrishDame) September 16, 2015 September 16, 2015   Shock Executive Order: Obama Authorizes Behavioral Experiments On U.S. Citizens: To A ... - https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe  State of Globe (@StateofGlobe) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Obama Executive Order Instructs Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens: https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e  Bill Periman (@BillPeriman) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Origins:   On 15 September 2015 the web site Daily Caller published an article titled "President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments on American Public" which claimed that the chief executive had "authorized federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens": President Obama announced a new executive order which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives. The article was aggregated by other news outlets such as DC Clothesline, which similarly claimed the President's executive order had instructed "Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens": Does anyone actually believe "behavioral experiments" on the US citizenry are about "designing government policies to better serve the American people?" Think Pavlov's dog. And, can someone point to the Constitution and show where government has the authority to "experiment" on the citizenry in any shape, form or fashion? It's not there. Government possesses no authority whatsoever to conduct any type of experimentation, behavioral or otherwise, on the citizens of this nation. Both Daily Caller and DC Clothesline used the phrase "behavioral experiments" (conjuring up frightening scenarios of federal gaslighting), and the second article placed the phrase in quotes, suggesting specifically that the Obama administration had "ordered" sinister-sounding "behavioral experiments" be inflicted upon Americans. The 15 September 2015 Executive Order referenced by the articles is available on the White House's web site for open review. Tellingly, the word "experiments" does not appear anywhere within it; only words such as "encourage[d]," "identify," "review," and "improve." The executive order about "Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People" actually decreed: web site decreed To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government, behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. Alongside the Executive Order, the White House issued a document titled "Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order; White House Announces New Steps to Improve Federal Programs by Leveraging Research Insights." Aiming to provide details not included on the Executive Order about how "behavioral insights" could apply to the creation and implementation of policy, that document explained: document Behavioral science insights  research insights about how people make decisions  not only identify aspects of programs that can act as barriers to engagement, but also provide policymakers with insight into how those barriers can be removed through commonsense steps, such as simplifying communications and making choices more clear. That same study on financial aid found that streamlining the process of applying  by providing families with assistance and enabling families to automatically fill parts of the application using information from their tax return  increased the rates of both aid applications and college enrollment. When these insights are used to improve government, the returns can be significant. For instance, the Federal Government applied behavioral science insights to simplify the process of applying for Federal student aid and has made college more accessible to millions of American families. Similarly, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which codified the practice of automatically enrolling workers into retirement savings plans, is based on behavioral economics research showing that switching from an opt-in to an opt-out enrollment system dramatically increases participation rates. Since the implementation of this policy, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation have led to billions of dollars in additional savings by Americans. Another germane fact sheet tidbit came in the form of detail pertaining to a new committee formed to facilitate the order's initiatives: The Executive Order also formally establishes the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), a group of experts in applied behavioral science that translates findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences into improvements in Federal policies and programs for the benefit of the American people. The passage excerpted above indicated that behavioral insights data targeted by the initiative stemmed not from government-led "behavioral experiments," but rather "findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences."  Another passage supported inferences that non-governmental research groups would be tasked with submitting the bulk of relevant findings to the SBST for consideration in the drafting of future policy: The Behavioral Science & Policy Association (BSPA) is launching a Behavioral Science and Policy Series to identify promising avenues for applying behavioral science to public policy at the Federal level in order to improve Americans' lives. Through this series, by September 2016, working groups will deliver white papers that propose particular applications of behavioral science that can be applied, tested, and implemented at the Federal level in the near term. A less harrowing interpretation of the executive order than that fostered by conservative news sites was offered by the Houston Chronicle in a 17 September 2015 article: article Dr. Andrew Harper, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Texas Health Medical School, said behavioral science is an old discipline, used to maximize communication effectiveness, that is only now being applied to government-authored materials. "For example in healthcare there are simple things we want people to do  eat a balanced diet, sleep well," he said. "When just saying 'do it' doesn't work, we look to behavioral science to inform us on strategies that might work better." According to the executive order, research will be used to inform even the basic layout of federal agencies websites and other outreach information. The newly-founded team will consider "how the content, format, timing and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals." In other words, researchers will conduct clinical studies to determine how agencies could more effectively present information in a way that will move people to action. The Executive Order didn't come to pass without some objections, however. The University of Oxford's Practical Ethics in the News Blog featured an editorial that questioned how scientifically rigorous the selection and application of such data might be, implying the initiative's mission was too ambiguous. Author Joshua Shepherd conceded that the proposal was overall "a good thing," but said "the order raises a number of ethical and practical issues": editorial Given recent evidence that many results from experimental and social psychology fail to replicate, there might be reason to worry here. The executive order does not define what counts as an 'insight' from behavioral science. Is it the result of one study? A couple? Deployment of an insight that is nothing more than an experimental artifact could be damaging, or wasteful. Suppose a genuine insight exists. Even so, implementing it is not straightforward. Other experts didn't think that the potential flaws outweighed the benefits. University of Michigan professor Andrew Hoffman outlined the potential practical effects of such initiatives on policy in a Scientific American article, positing that their application to the drafting of policy was "long overdue": article [Hoffman] says that people might react rebelliously to a gas tax imposed by the government. A rise in its cost spurred by market forces, on the other hand, might prompt them to drive less. In that way, federal policies should consider the complicated ways that people filter, interpret and process messages. You can't expect to put a price on something  whether that's gas, plastic bags or emissions  and get an expected result, he said. These are things that sociology, psychology, political science have been focusing on for decades, Hoffman said. So to bring in the notion that humans are not perfectly rational, utility-maximizing beings in the formation of policy is long overdue. It is true that President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging and facilitating the application of behavioral research insights, with a stated goal of creating more efficient policy and stronger compliance. Moreover, some credible questions were raised about how rigorous standards for inclusion of such data might be. But the order neither referenced nor described "behavioral experimentation" upon the American people, nor did it in any way suggest that the order's details involved using anything other than existing, ongoing research carried out by social and behavioral science experts. Last updated:     17 September 2015 Originally published:   17 September 2015 After Silicon Valley Bank collapsed, some pundits and news organizations suggestedwithout evidencethat woke investments contributed to the collapse. Silicon Valley Bank donated $73M to BLM Movement, one March 15 Newsmaxheadlinecirculating on social media read. Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson andJesse Wattersalso made similar claims. Silicon Valley Bank  brace yourself  spent more than $73 million on donations to BLM and related organizations, CarlsonsaidMarch 14. The Newsmax article and similarpostswere flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The Newsmax article pointed to adatabasefrom the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank. The database tracks pledges and contributions to the BLM movement and related causes, according to the institute. In the databases explanatory notes, the institute said its definition of the BLM movement includes organizations such as Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation; Movement for Black Lives; grassroots groups; independent BLM chapters; the fiscal sponsors of BLM organizations; and BLM partners such as the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union. The Claremont Institute defined Black Lives Matter related causes as organizations and initiatives that advance one or more aspects of BLMs agenda. However, Black Lives Matter is not one entity with a set agenda. It is a decentralized international activistmovementwith no formal hierarchy. The Claremont Institute and Silicon Valley Bank did not respond to PolitiFacts requests for comment. An institute spokespersontold MarketWatchthat most of Silicon Valley Banks roughly $70.5 million in contributions fell in the related causes category. He also said the bank donated to the NAACP and ACLU. The banks charitable contributions included in Claremonts $70 million-plus total went primarily to groups and initiatives with no clear tie to the Black Lives Matter movement: A 2021 pledge to invest more than $50 million over five years into the banksAccess to Innovation program, which works to connect people who are often underrepresented in the innovation economy  including women, Blacks and Latinos  with hiring, mentorship, educational and networking opportunities. A $20 million donation that the banksaidwould be used to support COVID-19 relief; a needs-based scholarship program; economic development; and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. A 2-to-1 matchingcampaignthe bank created in 2020 for employees who donated their money or time to social justice organizations. A $250,000 allocation from the Silicon Valley Bank Foundation to support grants for social justice organizations where bank employees volunteer. A prominent Black Lives Matter organization, Black Lives Matter Global Foundation Network, told PolitiFact in a statement that the Black Lives Matter movement includes thousands of organizations, so there is no way for the group to say with certainty whether Silicon Valley Bank donated to any one of them. The group also said the banks possible contributions to Black causes are irrelevant to what caused the banks collapse. Flags fly in Black Lives Matter Plaza as President Joe Biden is sworn in during 59th Presidential Inauguration, Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2021, in Washington. (AP) A report in the newsletterPopular Informationfound an error in the databases calculations: Nearly $3 million in contributions that the database had initially counted occurred in 2019, not 2020. The Claremont Institute, which started tracking this data in 2020, updated the database to reflect that information, meaning the banks total contributions for 2020 were $70.65 million, rather than over $73 million, as the initial claims said. As of March 22, Newsmax had not corrected its headline to reflect that change. Facebook posts claimed Silicon Valley Bank donated $73M to 'BLM Movement.' The claim stemmed from a database kept by the Claremont Institute. It showed that since 2020, Silicon Valley Bank had donated or pledged to donate more than $70 million to causes related to the Black Lives Matter movement. The institute defined related causes as organizations and initiatives that advance one or more aspects of BLMs agenda. Black Lives Matter is not one entity with a set agenda; it is a decentralized international activist movement with no formal hierarchy. A close look at the Claremont list shows that Silicon Valley Banks charitable contributions went primarily to groups and initiatives with no clear association to the Black Lives Matter movement. We rate this claim False. RELATED:Was Silicon Valley Bank demise caused by Trump easing regulation, 'woke' efforts, or something else? Claim:  Starting in 2011, all employees will have to pay taxes on the value of health insurance provided by their employers.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2010] I contacted my Congressman about House bill HR 3590, the health care bill. I asked for a summary of changes. The Aid directed me to go to www.thomas.gov, enter HR 3590 in the search box and look for summaries. Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or Governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross WILL go up by the amount of insurance you get. You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases. Not believing this I researched the summaries and here's what I'm reading: On page 25 of 29:TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS - (sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901)    Sec.9002."requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income." Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplinger's and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about. Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November and we need to vote in Conservatives that will repel this horrid law!    Origins:  This is another case of a legislative issue which has a kernel of truth to it, but which has been misinterpreted, affects only a small percentage of the population, and has misleadingly been blown out of proportion through someone's mistaken assumption that it applies to everyone. Section 9002 of PPACA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), requires that all employers, beginning in 2011, report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health benefits they provide to employees on those employees' W-2 forms.  However, the monetary values so reported will neither be counted as gross income nor will they be taxed; they will be included for informational purposes only.  (Section 106A of the Internal Revenue Code states that, in general, employer-provided health coverage is not taxable to the employee.) Section 106A The portion (Title IX, Sec. 9001) of the PPACA referenced above is entitled "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Coverage."  This is the section of the recently passed health care reform legislation that addresses taxing so-called high-level "Cadillac" health care plans that some employees receive through their employers.   Title IX, Sec. 9001 In general, beginning in 2018 (not 2011), the PPACA imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored medical insurance that exceeds a given threshold (initially $27,500 annually).  This excise tax would be paid by the insurance company, not the employee, and is initially expected to affect fewer than 10% of families covered by health insurance: Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. Workers pick up the rest but pay no taxes on the employer's often-substantial contribution. That's why many unions have bargained hard for generous health coverage over the years, even if that meant forgoing a bigger pay raise. The new agreement would take away the tax advantage for a small portion of the health benefit by imposing a 40 percent tax on the amount by which the premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage exceed specified thresholds. That would be $27,500 a year for a family, starting in 2018. The tax on a $29,500 plan would be $800, or 40 percent of $2,000. The insurance company would pay the tax but would almost certainly pass it along to the employer and its employees. That $27,500 threshold is well above the current average of $13,400 for a family plan. By 2016, more than 80 percent of all family plans are projected to still fall below the threshold. In the following years, the tax threshold would rise more slowly than the likely rate of inflation in medical costs, which could mean the plans of millions of workers  a small minority of the work force  would be subject to the tax in theory. Most likely, insurers will drop their premiums just below the threshold. They could do that by setting higher deductibles and co-payments, managing access to care more tightly, or reducing benefits. Last updated:  25 May 2010    The New York Times.  "Cadillac Plans."   15 January 2010.    The Washington Post.  "Will President Obama Defend the 'Cadillac Tax' to Cut Health-Care Costs?"   12 January 2010. What happens when the sitting President of the United States can no longer carry out his duties due to death, resignation, removal from office, or incapacitation?  That was one of the issues addressed by the framers of the U.S. Constitution back in the 18th century, but unfortunately not thoroughly so  ambiguities of wording and unanticipated circumstances have required that the Constitution be amended several times to cover situations not originally foreseen. Even today, some questions about presidential succession and eligibility remain, giving rise to various thought exercises such as the following: thought exercises  Although the particular scenario outlined in the above meme is a hypothetical, we can say that its  description of how to restore to office a President who has been impeached and removed from office would almost certainly fail in real life for practical and/or legal reasons. For openers, let's summarize the process of removing a President from office.   The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings to discuss the charges against the President (similar to a grand jury pondering an indictment), prepares articles of impeachment outlining those charges, and (if a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles), sends them to the full House for debate and vote.  If a majority of the full House votes for impeachment based on one or more of those articles, then the President must stand trial in the Senate.  If two-thirds of the Senate votes to convict at the culmination of that trial, the President is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be barred from holding any high governmental position again. But could the removed President's successor make use of constitutional powers to pardon him and engage a scheme to reinstall him to the presidency by appointing him Vice President?    Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states that "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."  So if the Senate voted to convict a sitting President and thereby remove him from office, they could also vote to permanently disqualify him from holding federal office again.   However, none of that judgment could be undone by a presidential pardon, because Article II, Section 2 (which establishes the presidential pardon privilege) states that "The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."  (If this were not the case, then a sitting President facing impeachment could simply pardon himself and thus avoid any punishment.) What if the Senate voted to remove a President from office but did not also vote to bar him from holding office again?  That's where the practicality part of this exercise kicks in. Let's imagine a President is impeached and removed from office, and the Vice President thereby assumes the presidency.  Now the office of Vice President is vacant and needs to be filled.  Could the just-removed President step into that role? Amendment XXV of the U.S. Constitution specifies that "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."  Theoretically, anyone who was  constitutionally eligible to hold office could be nominated for the VP slot.  But how likely is it that the same Congress that just voted overwhelmingly to oust a politician from the highest office in the land would then turn right around and approve appointing that same person to the second-highest office?  We'll go with "not very likely." About the only way this scenario could conceivably play out in real life would be if the following sequence of events took place: 1) A President were impeached and removed from office but not permanently barred from holding office.2) An election that altered the makeup of Congress intervened before a new Vice President could be nominated and approved.3) The results of that election tilted Congress in favor of the recently deposed President.4) The newly seated Congress opted to make one of their first acts of business the audacious re-installation to power of a President who had just been drummed out of office. All of the maneuvering described above would only get the former President as far the vice presidency.  Elevating him back into the position of chief executive would require that the current President be so pliant as to willingly step aside to make room for someone who had just been kicked out of office  an act that would have no obvious upside to it for the recently installed President (given that   achieving the presidency is generally considered the pinnacle of any politician's career).   All in all, it's possible that under an extremely contrived and convoluted sequence of events, a President who had been impeached and removed from office could regain the White House without standing for election again ... but the likelihood of circumstances lining up just right to make that happen are practically zero.   And the presidential power to pardon would be irrelevant to that process. Claim:  After the implementation of "Check 21" on 28 October 2004, consumers will no longer be able to "float" checks. Status:  Multiple  see below. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] "Check 21" starting in late October You've probably bought something in a store with a check even though you don't have the money in your account at the time. You figure you have a few days for the check to clear, and by then the money will be there. It's called the "float." Well, the float is slowly becoming a thing of the past. Because of a new law going into effect in October, money will be drafted from your account immediately when you write a check. It's called "Check 21," and it allows retailers to scan your check through a machine that deducts the cash within minutes. It's essentially the end of the paper check system, as well, because the check will eventually be destroyed. There will be an image of the check online and that will serve as proof if you need it. But everything is becoming electronic, and a bank will know if a check is good right away. So, be prepared to move to an electronic bill pay system. It's the smart way to go. What about checks that you deposit? Well, the float is no longer available to you, the customer. But the bank still will hold a deposit for a few days to make sure it clears. It's not fair, but it's the way it's happening. What are the main effects of "Check 21" on consumers? You won't be able to get your original paper checks back, because your bank will no longer have them. Checks you write will clear sooner, increasing the risk that a check will bounce if funds are not in the account when you write the check. Don't write a check unless the funds are already in the account to cover it.  You may not get access to the funds from checks you deposit any sooner, because the new law does not shorten check hold times. After 30 months, there must be a study on whether banks are making funds available to consumers earlier than the allowable hold periods. Banks will save money on processing checks, but banks are not required to share these savings with consumers. Different kinds of copies of a check will have different rights attached. Check 21 creates a new kind of paper copy of an electronic image of a check. This special kind of copy is called a "substitute check." Only a substitute check can be the legal equivalent of the original check, and only a substitute check triggers your right to recredit of disputed funds. A regular copy of a check does not carry these same protections. If you ask for a copy of a check, your bank may send you an ordinary copy insteadof this special kind of copy which triggers legal rights and protections unless you ask for a substitute check. A bank other than your bank will have your original check, and will decide whether to destroy it. Neither Check 21 nor other law requires a bank to keep your original check for any period of time. Before Check 21, your own bank decided how long to keep your original checks, if you didn't get them returned with your statement. Under Check 21, the bank of the person you wrote the check to may decide when to destroy your check. Consumers will get new rights for some electronically processed checks, but not for others. When a so-called "substitute check" is provided to a consumer, Check 21 gives the consumer a right to have funds of up to $2,500 recredited to the consumer's account in 10 business days if the check is paid twice, paid for the wrong amount, or otherwise paid in error. The statute is ambiguous about whether this new right applies when a paper substitute check is used in the processing of the check but is not returned to the consumer. The regulations restrict the right of recredit only to checks where the consumer was provided with a substitute check. If a check is processed electronically by all the banks it is routed through without the use of a substitute check and the consumer is not providedwith a substitute check, then the check remains under state check law. In that case, the consumer does not receive a 10 day right of recredit even if the electronic image of the check is paid twice, paid for the wrong amount, or if both the electronic image and the paper check are paid. Consumers who want to maximize their consumer rights should ask for return of "substitute checks" with their checking account statements. Watch out for fees associated with a substitute check-returning account. Look for another bank if your bank charges a high fee to get copies of all your checks as substitute checks.  Only the special "substitute check" can be legally equivalent to the original check to prove payment. The copies that a bank sends to consumers under a so-called "voluntary truncation" agreement, where the consumer agrees not to get the checks back, do not prove that a payment has beenmade, and do not trigger your Check 21 recredit right. When do these changes go into effect? Check 21 becomes effective October 28, 2004. Origins:  On 28 October 2004, the provisions of the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (commonly known as   "Check 21") will go into effect.  The intent of the act is to eliminate check-clearing delays, primarily by removing the requirement that checks must be physically transported to the banks that issued them in order to be cleared for payment.  After 28 October 2004, banks will be allowed to transmit and clear checks by electronic facsimile, a practice that should avoid any clearing delays caused by circumstances that make the physical transportation of checks difficult or impossible (e.g., severe weather, power failures, terrorism). Check 21 Of course, one result of faster check processing will be a much shorter gap between the time consumers issue checks for payment and the time the covering funds are withdrawn from their accounts (usually referred to as the "float" time).  After Check 21 goes into effect checks may be processed in a matter of hours or even minutes, so consumers can no longer safely assume they have a grace period after writing checks before the funds are actually tapped from their accounts.  Check 21 does not, however, change the rules affecting how long banks can hold for clearance checks deposited by their customers.  Generally, banks can hold local checks for up to two days, out-of-town checks for up to five days, and other types of checks (e.g., checks over $5,000, checks drawn on new accounts, checks written against consistently overdrawn accounts) for up to thirty days.  The bottom line is that consumers will have to be more careful than ever to ensure that adequate funds are always available to cover the checks they  write. Also, under Check 21 banks will no longer be required to return canceled checks to their customers; they may return photographic images of the checks instead.  Banks will be able to issue certified photocopies of checks known as "substitute checks," and these copies will have the same evidentiary standing in courts of law as the originals.  (Although banks may allow customers to view and print out images of their checks over the Internet, those self-printed copies will not technically be considered substitute checks even though most courts will likely still accept them as evidence of payment.)  Check 21 will not explicitly require banks to provide substitute checks, so consumers may want to check with their banks to ensure they receive substitute checks with their statements.  Another provision of Check 21 will speed up resolution of customer claims regarding fraud and error.  Currently banks do not need to credit the accounts of customers who complain of error or fraud until their investigations are complete. After Check 21 banks must prove within ten days that disputed transactions were not their fault; if they do not provide such proof, they must credit their customers' accounts for the disputed amounts even if they have not completed their investigations. Although the Check 21 act goes into effect on 28 October 2004, banks do not have to begin electronically clearing checks on that date  Check 21 merely authorizes banks to begin use of electronic check clearing.  Most major banks already have imaging technology in place, but not all banks do, and some banks may therefore continue to process checks the "old" way until they upgrade their processing systems. Additonal information:       Frequently Asked Questions About "Check 21"   (Federal Reserve Board)     Questions and Answers About "Check 21"   (Consumers Union)   Last updated:  28 October 2004    Sources:   Kristof, Kathy M.  "Checks About to Be Put on Fast Track."   Los Angeles Times.  5 September 2004.    Associated Press.  "Banks Implement Check 21 Starting Thursday."    28 October 2004. Finally, a point where Republicans and at least one prominent Democrat agree.LikePresident Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, Austins U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul says corporate tax rates are too high.To a recentvoters guidequestion on how to combat unemployment, McCaul -- a Republican seeking another term representing the 10th Congressional District -- gave responses that included lowering Americas corporate tax rate, highest in the world at 35 percent.A decrease to 25 percent would stop driving American businesses overseas, McCaul said in the guide, produced by the Austin and Texas chapters of the League of Women Voters and theAustin American-Statesman. McCaul faces Tawana Cadien (Democrat) and Richard Priest (Libertarian) on Nov. 6.PolitiFact has recently checked corporate tax rate claims with a different figure, so we decided to compare this statement.McCaul spokesman Mike Rosen told us by email that 35 percent is the top statutory rate for U.S. corporate taxes, citing an April 5, 2012,backgrounderfrom the Council on Foreign Relations.The council, an independent, nonpartisan think-tank, said the U.S. had the highest corporate tax rate in the world by two measures: Excluding state and local taxes, the rate was 35 percent. With those sub-national taxes, the rate was 39.2 percent.Most news stories we read while researching this fact-check used the latter rate -- combining federal, state and local. Thats the yardstick used in related PolitiFact articles, and its also the statistic that made headlines when an April 1, 2012, rate cut took effect in Japan and moved the U.S. into first place. The rest of the top five are France, Belgium and Germany, according to a September 2011reportby the Washington-based Tax Foundation that gave 2012 federal-plus-state/local rates, weighted to reflect the economies sizes so that small countries would not have a disproportional effect on the average. OECD statutory corporate tax rates, 2012  Source: Tax Foundation 2011report The foundations 2011 report and most of the news articles we read for this story limited their comparisons to advanced industrialized countries -- often citing the34 membersof the global Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. We asked foundation spokesman Richard Morrison for help tracking down country-by-country rates that did not include taxes below the federal level, to make an apples-to-apples comparison with McCauls 35 percent.Morrison pointed us, via email, to anOECD web pagewith achartshowing those numbers for 2012.The U.S. rate of 35 percent is the highest on the chart, with the other OECD nations averaging 23.6 percent (figures that, unlike the statistics cited above, are not weighted to reflect size of national economies).So McCauls statement holds true for federal-level-only corporate tax rates as well as for the state/local-plus-federal rate.Butrecent PolitiFact itemshave also taken into account the rate corporations pay after deductions and exemptions, called the effective rate.In anAug. 27, 2012, Truth-O-Meter article, PolitiFact New Jersey wrote, When you factor in various tax breaks, the rate actually paid by U.S. businesses has been among the highest in the world, but not in first place, studies show.The 2011 foundationreportsummarized 13 studies of effective corporate tax rates across the world, which used different methodologies and were not limited to the OECD roster. The smallest study compared 10 countries; the largest, 183.Those studies found the U.S. effective tax rate ranging from 23 percent to 34.9 percent, which often placed it in the top five, but never No. 1.But the U.S. hit the top spot in a more recent report. Morrison told us the latest such comparison was made in September 2012 for the libertarian Cato Institute. Thatreportcalculated the U.S. effective rate at 35.6 percent and ranked it highest among OECD nations but fourth among all 90 nations it examined.How did U.S. rates get to be among the highest? Actually, other countries dropped theirs, we learned by phone from Jonathan Masters, author of the Council on Foreign Relations piece.We found succinct descriptions of the history in Time magazine and The Hill, a Washington, D.C. newspaper. An April 2, 2012, Timeblog postsays that while the U.S. rate stayed steady for two decades, the trend internationally has been towards lower corporate tax rates. The Hills Aug. 27, 2012blog postsays that in 1986, the OECD nations average corporate tax was 50 percent, but today, its 25 percent for those countries -- it has fallen in half. Meanwhile, the U.S. rate, which fell from 46 percent to 34 percent as a result of tax reform in 1986, is now stuck at 35 percent.Our rulingMcCaul said the U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the world at 35 percent.The rate set by federal statute is the highest, both by itself and when considering the federal rate plus state and local taxes.However, theres much less consensus about effective corporate tax rates -- the rates corporations actually pay. Studies dont even agree on what the U.S. effective rate is, pegging it between 23 percent and 35.6 percent. Older studies put the U.S. near the top; a recent study says the U.S. is No. 1 among OECD nations.We rate McCauls statement as Mostly True. On 31 October 2018, the Facebook page Hunter Alerts was born, garnering just 40 followers in its first week of existence. So far, all that page has been used for is the distribution of two political advertisements asserting that If you vote in North Dakota, you may forfeit hunting licenses you have in other states. If you want to keep your out-of-state hunting licenses, you may not want to vote in North Dakota": Hunter Alerts advertisements   Those ads were promoted by North Dakotas Democratic party (known as the Democratic-Nonpartisan League, or Democratic-NPL) and linked back to that partys website with a slightly more detailed explanation of the claim: explanation You MUST be a resident of North Dakota to vote here. And if you are a resident of North Dakota, you may lose hunting licenses you have in other states. If you want to keep your out-of-state hunting licenses, you may not want to vote in North Dakotas 2018 election. This statement, which was misleading for several reasons (enumerated below) and was provided with no additional information, citations, or exposition, was characterized by many critics as an attempt to suppress conservative votes in North Dakota because it targets a demographic (i.e., hunters) who traditionally lean conservative. (North Dakota also faces allegations of voter suppression efforts that target the more Democrat-friendly Native American population in that state.) characterized allegations Both the North Dakota Secretary of State and the North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NGFD) have told reporters they do not know what the ad was talking about. An NGFD representative told us via email that they cannot explain [the ad] and we have no desire to try to sort it out for [the Democratic-NPL]. We have had no involvement in the post. told The most generous interpretation of the Democratic-NPL statement would be that the act of voting in North Dakota, because it requires a state-issued North Dakota ID, means voters would necessarily be forfeiting claims to residency in any other states. Many states offer both resident and non-resident hunting licenses, with the former coming at a cheaper cost but with proof-of-residency requirements. If, as the Democratic-NPL seemed to be arguing, one somehow obtained a resident hunting license in another state but actually lived and voted in North Dakota, that other state could revoke their license if they found out you had declared residency somewhere else. (The Democratic-NPL declined our request for comment). requires Many states Not only was this scenario far more specific than what was implied by the two-sentence statement promoted by the Democratic-NPL, but it also suggested an unrealistic level of inter-state bureaucratic communication whereby one states hunting licensure board actively communicated with the ID-granting offices in every other state to make sure no one was receiving unwarranted license discounts. In most (if not all) cases, it was also simply inaccurate. As an example, we will present a scenario under which a Wyoming resident legally obtains a resident hunting permit in that state and then moves and legally obtains residency (and therefore voting rights) in North Dakota. In Wyoming, you must have resided in that state for at least one year, and during that time period you must not have been claiming residency for any other purpose in any other state (emphasis ours): Wyoming To qualify for any resident game and fish license, preference point, permit or tag, a person shall be domiciled and shall physically reside in Wyoming for one (1) full year (365 consecutive days) immediately preceding the date the person applies for or purchases the license, preference point, permit or tag and the person shall not have claimed residency elsewhere for any other purpose (including, but not limited to, voting, payment of income taxes, purchase of resident hunting, fishing or trapping licenses, etc.) during that one (1) year period. While several states stipulate you can no longer be considered a resident if you register to vote somewhere else, the requirements to receive a resident hunting license in Wyoming and most other states is retrospective and not prospective. If a hypothetical Wyoming resident switched jobs and moved to North Dakota to work, their Wyoming hunting license would already have been issued, and the State of Wyoming would likely have no idea that person had moved. All that would be required for that individual to become a valid North Dakota voter would be for that person to have maintained a residence in the state for 90 consecutive days and to have obtained an ID card or driver's license from North Dakota's Department of Transportation. no longer required An additionally misleading aspect of the ad is the suggestion that the act of voting could pose a threat to out-of-state hunting licenses. If you want to keep your out-of-state hunting licenses, the Democratic-NPL states, you may not want to vote in North Dakotas 2018 election (our emphasis added). The only population of people this ad could possibly be relevant to are people who live in North Dakota, have a resident hunting license in another state, and also do not have an up-to-date North Dakota ID or drivers license. By not providing those supporting details, the ad does nothing to correct the false notion an already legal North Dakota voter (i.e., one already in possession of a state-issued ID) could put the legality of their theoretical out-of-state hunting licenses in jeopardy by going to the polls. The fact that this ad was released less than a week before the election also speaks poorly of its legitimacy. The argument presented by the Democratic-NPL is based on a highly implausible scenario that has state hunting licensure boards actively and continually communicating with other states DOT or DMV offices and would relate only (if at all) to a population of people who have claimed to be residents in other states for the purpose of obtaining discounted resident hunting licenses. Even then, it would not be the act of voting that theoretically put out-of-state licenses at risk, but the act of obtaining the state-issued ID required for voting. North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party.  "By Voting in North Dakota, You Could Forfeit Your Hunting Licenses."
  Accessed 2 November 2018.  Schallhorn, Kaitlyn.  "North Dakota Democratic Party Discourages Hunters from Voting, Claims They Could Lose Out-of-State Licenses."
  Fox News.  2 November 2018. Lopez, German.  "North Dakotas New Voting Restrictions Seem Aimed at Native Americans Who Vote Democrat."
  Vox.  31 October 2018.
 Crowe, Jack.  "North Dakota Dems Threaten Hunters with Loss of License for Voting."
  National Review.  1 November 2018. North Dakota Secretary of State.  "ID Required for Voting."
  Accessed 2 November 2018.  Wyoming Game and Fish Department.  "Hunting in Wyoming."
  Accessed 2 November 2018.  North Dakota Dept. of Transportation.  "ID Card Requirements."
  Accessed 2 November 2018. In recent weeks, the national media has poked fun at John Kasich for chomping through Italian subs and pasta in the Bronx and eating pizza in Queens  with a knife and fork. Back home, Ohio Democrats talked about something else: the governors out-of-state travel, and what it costs taxpayers in the only state he has won. The Ohio Democratic Party posted a graphic on itsFacebookpage on April 8, 2016, to bolster its complaint. Kasichs costly campaign, the image says, entails 177 days spent out of state and a tab of $350,000 to taxpayers. How did they calculate the days and dollars? We decided to look into it. The partys communications director, Kirstin Alvanitakis, pointed us to aMarch 26Columbus Dispatchstoryreporting that Kasich has been out of state at least 177 days as he pursued the presidency. TheDispatchtally includes days he spent exploring the bid before his official announcement July 21, 2015. AnAssociated Press storycontains the $350,000 figure. By law, a special unit within the state department of public safety is assigned to protect the governor, and nine state troopers guard him 24/7. So when he goes to Mikes Deli, so do they. State funds from the public safety departments non-highway program, which includes the governors security detail, is likely paying for rental cars, hotel rooms, flights, fuel, per diems and overtime while Kasich criss-crosses the country chasing delegates. But theDispatchstory describes how cagey state agencies are being with these specifics. Information that was public in the years before Kasichs run is now shielded. On payroll records, the governors detail was previously listed as the executive protection unit. Officials told theDispatchthat that designation that has been dropped to shield the troopers identities. To ensure safety and security, we do not discuss any of the resources used as part of the executive security detail, is the response repeated by agency spokespersons and the governors campaign staff alike. The Associated Press used another tool to approximate the cost: an interactive, searchable checkbook of state spending hosted on the website of Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, part of hisnationally recognizedtransparency initiative. We used the Ohio Checkbook to drill down into the data, which has been updated since the AP checked. Isolating the travel costs of the non-highway program, which is currently showing expenditures from July 1, 2015, through Feb. 2, 2016, the total now comes to $403,638. This chart shows how disproportionate the travel spending has been in 2016 so far, compared to prior years. Most of the transactions shown through the Ohio Checkbook lack details (General Travel Expenses is a recurring line item), but there are some expenditures that coincide with Kasichs campaign stops. Like a batch of hotel rooms booked over a series of days in December at the Wynn Las Vegas, the Renaissance Des Moines, the Doubletree Salt Lake City, and the Hampton Inn of Waterloo, all around the time period last December when Kasich bounced from a debate in Nevada, to a town hall in Iowa, to a fundraiser in Utah, and back to Iowa. Its not a staggering total, though some taxpayers might argue that $403,638 could be better spent on other state services. Kasich has poo-pooed any suggestions that he should drop out of the race before the Republican National Convention in July, which means the total taxpayer share from his campaign travel could continue to swell. (The average monthly spending from this fund in fiscal year 2016 is about $57,663. By comparison, $57,562 was the total spent in all of fiscal year 2014.) Other governors who ran for president have stuck taxpayers with tabs, too. Chris Christies security detail cost New Jersey taxpayers an estimated$614,000. Bobby Jindal racked up$400,000in Louisiana during his considerably shorter run through November 2015. Wisconsin taxpayers paid Scott Walkers security team$577,000in overtime alone before he dropped out in September 2015. Walker reimbursed about $260,000 to the state for expenses his campaign incurred. So far, the Kasich campaign has refused to disclose details about his security detail or its resources, or whether he similarly intends to give taxpayers a refund. We did not hear a response from Kasichs campaign, or spokesman Rob Nichols. Our ruling The Ohio Democratic Party said that in 177 days on the campaign trail, Kasichs security detail cost taxpayers $350,000. Our analysis confirmed that $350,000 is most likely a conservative estimate. At the current rate, the total could be twice that by the RNC in July. Since neither state officials nor Kasichs camp will confirm any details on the governors security, we have to rely on what we learned from the treasurers open records data. We rate this claim True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f55505e5-5211-4178-9fd0-7d1b2854c596