Does Facebook 'Write Off' Your Birthday Donations?
In November 2019, some people encountered a meme on Facebook that claimed the social media company was using the contributions its users were making to birthday fundraisers as a tax-deductible write-off for the company:   While this meme contains four separate assertions, we'll focus mainly on the second one for this article, that "Facebook is allowed to declare your donation for a tax write-off." Facebook launched its birthday-donation program in 2017, a feature that allows users to "donate their birthdays" to raise money for various charities. A few weeks before a Facebook user's birthday, the user receives a message asking about a possible fundraiser centered on that day. If the user decides to raise funds, he or she may choose from 750,00 non-profits, set a fundraising goal, and then share the fundraiser with Facebook friends. Here's how Facebook explained the feature in its announcement: explained Two weeks before your birthday, youll see a message from Facebook in your News Feed giving you the option to create a fundraiser for your birthday. You can create a fundraiser for any of the 750,000 US nonprofits available for fundraising on Facebook. Your friends will receive a notification inviting them to support your cause in honor of your special day.   When birthday fundraisers were initially rolled out, Facebook was retaining 5% of the donations to cover processing fees and fraud protection. The company did away with those fees at the end of 2017, so as of now 100% of such donations go to the designated charities. In August 2018, Facebook announced that it has helped facilitate $300 million in charitable donations. (The above-displayed meme claims in item 3 that Facebook can "brag" about its charitable donations, but we should note the company's announcement says "People Raise $300M Through Birthday Fundraisers in First Year," not "Facebook Raises $300M Through Birthday Fundraisers in First Year.") announced The claim that Facebook was able to use the $300 million raised by its users via birthday fundraisers as a tax-deductible write-off is not substantiated by any evidence. In fact, it seems that Facebook users and not the company itself are actually the ones who get to write off these donations, as Facebook states: states A donation to a nonprofit through its Facebook Page or a fundraiser on Facebook may be tax-deductible. Since tax laws vary by country and region, you should consult a tax professional or review the laws for your area to determine whether a donation is tax-deductible. After you make a donation, a confirmation will be sent to the primary email listed on your Facebook account. This confirmation shows that you've made this donation as a charitable contribution and that you're not receiving any goods or services in return. We reached out to Facebook for comment on this meme and a spokesperson told us that these claims were "completely false": These claims about Facebook Fundraising tools are completely false. We are a donation platform and payments to charities are processed by our licensed, regulated subsidiaries. 100% of whats raised using donate buttons and fundraisers created on Facebook goes to the benefiting nonprofit. Nonprofits either receive funds directly from Facebook, or via Network for Good, a Donor Advised Fund we partner with."  While Facebook does not write off donations made by users, the company's birthday fundraisers have nonetheless spurred some criticism. In October 2018, some users reported that their one-time donations turned into recurring donations. (In fact, some billing irregularities occurred, but no users were actually charged more than they agreed to donate.) Tech Crunch also noted that this program has raised concerns about privacy, and one fundraising consultant was leery of the program for further distancing donors from charitable organizations: reported Tech Crunch As with almost every other Facebook feature, its fundraising tools have prompted concerns about privacy, particularly donor privacy, which is considered sacrosanct by many organizations (Facebook lets users decide if they want to share their donation with friends). Some charities also have qualms about benefiting from Facebook fundraisers until the company does a better job of policing hate speech, especially if the purpose of their work is aiding marginalized or persecuted minority groups. prompted concerns about privacy users decide if they want to share their donation with friends does a better job of policing hate speech In an insightful blog post from last November, fundraising consultant Jeremy Hatch argued that fundraising on Facebook also eliminates the relationship between donors and organizations, where there are established norms and ethical practices. He added that non-profits should reconsider before they grow increasingly reliant on a company whose ultimate goal is to gather and monetize user data. insightful blog post from last November We've yet to come across any credible reporting, however, documenting that Facebook was using individual donations from users as a tax write-off. As such, we rate this claim  Facebook Newsroom.  "People Raise $300M Through Birthday Fundraisers in First Year."
  15 August 2018. Shu, Catherine.  "Facebook Says Birthday Fundraisers Have Raised More Than $300 Million Over the Past Year."
  Tech Crunch.  15 August 2018. Sweet, Joni.  "Is It Safe to Donate Money on Facebook for Birthday Causes?"
  Yahoo News.  2 November 2018. Facebook Newsroom.  "Celebrating a Birthday? Now You Can Make It Even More Meaningful."
  16 August 2017.
Shortly after outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan fired House Chaplain Patrick Conroy in a closed-door meeting at the end of April 2018, a rumor that the House Speaker had nominated televangelist Joel Osteen as his replacement started to spread online: fired spread   Paul Ryan did not nominate Joel Osteen to be the new House Chaplain. This rumor originated with a satirical post on the message board Democratic Underground: post In a surprise move during the weekend, Speaker Ryan proposed that Prosperity Gospel champion, Joel Osteen, become the new chaplain for the U.S. House of Representatives. In a brief comment, the Speaker said, "America needs to become more prosperous. It needs a new approach to individual wealth. Pastor Osteen carries that message and shows us the way. Working Americans should be grateful to pay more taxes to the Federal Government. As Jesus, himself, said, 'It will be returned an hundred-fold.' Joel, my good friend, suggests that the road to a more prosperious America will come through even higher taxes on low-income citizens, who will benefit in the end, of course. I agree with the good Pastor, and will be introducing new legislation to that effect soon."    The author of this post, a user identified as "MineralMan," wrote in the comments that the "evil grin" emoticon included at the bottom of the post indicated that the text was satirical. Forum users also compared the text to articles on the Borowitz Report, a well-known satirical blog published in the New Yorker: Borowitz Report   Zanona, Melanie.  "Ryan Explains Decision to Dismiss House Chaplain."
  The Hill.  27 April 2018. In mid-2015, thehistoric Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Carving Stone Mountain In June 2015, rumors claimed that a petition was being circulated that aimed to destroy the Stone Mountain carving permanently, but those rumors referenced a long-inactive petition that antedated the Charleston massacre.  Then a "like and share" image began to circulate online alongside claims that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had issued a formal statement demanding the memorial be "sand-blasted off" Stone Mountain: Stone Mountain circulate That rumor was particularly upsetting to those opposing the removal of Confederate symbols, who feared the carving (along with parts of Southern history) would be permanently destroyed. Confederate symbols Southern history News articles and social media posts referencing the NAACP claim overwhelmingly linked back to a single article published by Atlanta television station WSB-TV on 13 July 2015, titled "NAACP Wants Removal of Confederate Generals from Stone Mountain." The article quoted Atlanta NAACP chapter president Richard Rose, who opined that the Stone Mountain carving ought to be removed (and used the term "sand-blasted"): article The organization issued a statement calling for the removal of all symbols of the Confederacy from the park.     "My tax dollars should not be used to commemorate slavery," Rose said.      Rose said his group wants Confederate symbols removed from all state-owned buildings, parks and lands.       Rose told Petersen he would start with Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.     "Those guys need to go. They can be sand-blasted off, or somebody could carefully remove a slab of that and auction it off to the highest bidder," Rose said. The following day (14 July 2015) the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article titled "Sandblasting the Confederate Faces Off Stone Mountain? Yeah, Right." Curiously, what appeared to be link to the purported NAACP statement merely led to an image of the carving and a photograph of a document (which was undated and nearly impossible to read): article Although subsequent references to an NAACP statement calling for the destruction of the Stone Mountain carving were rife in articles across the web, we were unable to locate an actual copy of the purported statement to review its content or substantiate its existence. No mention of it appeared on the Atlanta NAACP's web site, nor was it mentioned on their Facebook  page. No information was provided in any reference to it about the date on which it was issued, what its content may have been, or what formal action was supposedly being sought by the Atlanta NAACP chapter.       web site Facebook It's true Atlanta NAACP chapter president Richard Rose said that the Stone Mountain carving should be "sand-blasted off" the mountain in a June 2015 interview and that the following day the Journal-Constitution referenced a "statement" from the local NAACP chapter. However, we were unable to locate a purported statement released by that chapter (or the larger national NAACP organization) demanding such an action. Moreover, whether such an action is even possible or plausible (not to mention under consideration to any meaningful degree) is doubtful. Claim:  Senator Harry Reid and a Chinese company building a solar plant are behind a standoff between federal agents and a Nevada rancher.  Examples:  [Collected via Facebook, April 2014] Site are reporting that Harry Reid is in cahoots with ENN a Chinese firm for which his son works to take over the range area in dispute with that Nevada rancher and the Bureau of Land Management. Is there any truth here?  The Bundy Ranch in NV standoff with BLM is being attributed to Harry Reid's desire to help his son secure rights for a Chinese company to build a solar energy farm in the Nevada desert. It's making it's rounds on Facebook and, of course, the internet. Origins:  April 2014 saw the publicizing of a decades-old dispute between the federal government and Cliven Bundy, a cattle rancher in Nevada, over grazing rights on public land. Back in 1993, Cliven Bundy began declining to pay the government fees required to allow his cattle to graze on public lands, and in 1998, as part of an effort to protect the endangered desert tortoise found in that area, the government obtained the issuance of a court order requiring Bundy to take his cows off that land.  In July 2013, a federal court finally ordered Bundy to get his cattle off public land within 45 days or risk having them confiscated by the government and sold to pay off the fees and trespassing fines (reportedly in excess of $1.2 million) that he owes: Bundy does not recognize federal authority over land where his ancestors first settled in the 1880s, which he claims belongs to the state of Nevada. The Bureau of Land Management [BLM] disagreed and took him to federal court, which first ruled in favor of the BLM in 1998. After years of attempts at a negotiated settlement over the $1.2 million Bundy owes in fees failed, federal land agents began seizing hundreds of his cattle illegally grazing on public land. Bundy's claim that the land belongs to Nevada or Clark County didn't hold up in court, nor did his claim of inheriting an ancestral right to use the land that pre-empts the BLM's role. As Bundy did not comply with the court order, the confiscation of his cattle began in April 2014, precipitating a tense standoff between Bundy's supporters and law enforcement officials. (The government eventually relented and released about 400 head of cattle it had seized from Bundy.) confiscation Somewhere along the way in the reporting of this brouhaha, the conspiracy theory arose that the showdown between Cliven Bundy and the federal government wasn't really about grazing cattle or endangered tortoises, but was actually about a deal between Harry Reid, the senior U.S. Senator from Nevada (and the current U.S. Majority Leader), and a Chinese company eager to build a solar plant on the disputed land: conspiracy theory As a family in Clark County, Nev. continues to face an onslaught of heavily armed federal agents determined to kick them off of their ranch, reports have surfaced that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might be behind the entire ordeal. The ranch, which has been in Cliven Bundy's family for more than a century, is ground zero for a growing showdown between federal authorities and individual rights activists. Reid and his eldest son, reports indicate, were integral in the support and/or implementation of a $5 billion solar plant being built in the county by a Chinese company. Reid has been outspoken in support of the government's position on the Bundy issue, and both he and his son Rory were in earlier years prominent advocates of efforts by ENN Mojave Energy LLC (a Chinese-backed company) to build a solar plant in Clark County: outspoken Questions surrounding family ties are flaring again in Nevada around the Senate majority leader. He and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert. Reid has been one of the project's most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada. His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission. However, the theory that Reid's putative involvement in the Bundy dispute was motivated by a desire to somehow profit from the building of a solar plant falls flat in the face of two basic facts: The site that ENN Mojave Energy was planning to buy in order to build a solar plant is nowhere near the public land Bundy has been disputing with the government, and ENN gave up the solar project and terminated its agreement to buy land to house it as far back as June 2013: A Chinese-backed company is pulling the plug on a multibillion-dollar solar project near Laughlin after it was unable to find customers for the power that would have been generated there, a Clark County spokesman said. In a letter, an executive from ENN Mojave Energy LLC informed the county that the company was terminating its agreement to purchase 9,000 acres near Laughlin, stating that the "market will not support a project of this scale and nature at this time." The company, a  subsidiary of ENN Group, described as the largest energy company in China, said it was unable to sign the necessary power purchase agreements to sell the energy generated from the solar plant to utilities in Nevada or neighboring states. The project was broken down into phases, but if fully completed, it was expected to generate enough energy to power 200,000 homes with a price tag of $1 billion to $6 billion. The move was hailed as a much-needed boost for economic development in the southern part of the state and was projected to create up to 2,200 permanent jobs. Commissioners agreed to sell the land at $4.5 million  about a sixth of its appraised value  in December 2011 to jump-start the development, but they put in place an aggressive timeline that required ENN to secure the complicated power purchase agreements. With the solar project now just a mirage, commissioners will discuss what to do with the 9,000 acres of county-owned land at their July 2 meeting. Even the conservative Breitbart site debunked this conspiracy claim, noting: Breitbart Despite the obvious partisan gain to be had if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's son Rory (a failed 2010 Nevada gubernatorial candidate) had somehow been involved in a "land grab" affecting the Bundy family ranch operation  the facts just do not pan out as such. Indeed, Rory Reid did in fact have a hand in plans to reclassify federal lands for renewable energy developments. Just northeast of Las Vegas and Nellis Air Force Base, plans were drawn by Reid allies to potentially develop 5,717 acres of land for such use. While it would be fair to claim that such activity was in Bundy's relative neighborhood, the federal lands once leased by the family were more than 20 miles away, east of Overton, Nevada. Some versions of this conspiracy theory mistake the proposed ENN Mojave Energy site with that of the Moapa Southern Paiute Solar project, but the latter's 250MW solar power plant is already under construction (so there is no need to grab land for it), and, as noted in Wildlife News, the Moapa plant is being built near the Moapa Indian Reservation and not on public land disputed by Cliven Bundy: Moapa Southern Paiute Wildlife News A cursory search shows a sudden explosion of articles claiming Nevada's senior senator, Harry Reid, wants Bundy's land (all Bundy actually owns is a melon farm) to build a solar plant to enrich himself and his son.  Bundy has been trespassing over 750,000 acres of U.S. public land to the south of Mesquite and Bunkerville, Nevada. Bundy's actual private property is his melon farm at Bunkerville, which looks like maybe 100 acres on Google Earth.  There is a solar farm. But it is not on the huge swath of land Bundy is trespassing on. The solar facility is actually under construction near the Moapa Indian Reservation about ten miles closer to Las Vegas. Likewise, another area currently being studied by BLM for the possible development of solar plants, commonly known as the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, is sometimes mistakenly thrown into the conspiracy theory mix by persons who point to a BLM report listing "Cattle Trespass Impacts" and claim that it documents the BLM's intent to use the disputed land for solar development: Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone report Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle. But as explained at the Wildlife News, that isn't what the quoted blurb means: Wildlife News There is some feeble effort to try to mitigate the damage to wildlife [caused by solar development]. Some of it is near the sites of these solar mirrors. This is called "primary mitigation." Some is in a place distant to the solar power site. This is called "secondary mitigation."  Wildlife mitigation is things like planting grass wildlife need or like, development of new water sources for wildlife to drink, and restoration of rangeland overgrazed by cattle. All this bureaucratic language means is that private groups like the Western Watersheds Project,  Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Friends of Gold Butte and Friends of Joshua Tree Forest don't think the damage from solar power plants located elsewhere can be mitigated at Gold Butte because the cattle will tromp all over it. Last updated:   14 April 2014    Ford, Matt.  "The Irony of Cliven Bundy's Unconstitutional Stand."   The Atlantic.  14 April 2014.     Landau, Joel.  "Federal Government Stops Fight with Nevada Rancher Over Grazing Land."   [New York] Daily News.  12 April 2014.     Maughan, Ralph.  "Bundy's Land Is Not Solar Farm for Harry Reid."   Wildlife News.  13 April 2014.     Maughan, Ralph.  "Here Is the "Notorious" Missing BLM Page Connecting to Harry Reid."   Wildlife News.  15 April 2014.     Shine, Conor.  "Company Dumps Big Laughlin Solar Project, Says Market Won't Support It."   Las Vegas Sun.  14 June 2013.     Stern, Marcus.  "U.S. Senator Reid, Son Combine for China firm's Desert Plant."   Reuters.  31 August 2012.     Woods, Lucy.  "Moapa Tribe and First Solar Begin Construction of 250MW Project."   PV-Tech  24 March 2014. Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown reeled off statistics on Californias prison spending during his final State of the State Address after a total of 16 years as governor. Brown, who has followed a federal court order to reduce the states prison overcrowding, warned legislators at the state Capitol not to simply pass more crime laws but instead consider a holistic approach to criminal justice. He suggested California has gone too far on prison spending since 1970. The corrections budget then was about 3 percent of the general fund. Now, its 8.9 percent, about $12 billion, Brown said. Was the governor right? Has Californias prison spending nearly tripled as a share of the states general fund budget since 1970? We set out on a fact check. Our research Californias1970-71 fiscal year budget, produced under then Gov. Ronald Reagan, backs up the first part of Browns claim. It lists the corrections department as 2.8 percent, or nearly $40 million, of the states $1.4 billion general fund budget that year. California's 1970-71 fiscal year budget. Browns 2018-19 budget proposal, meanwhile, also supports the claim. It shows the state expects to spend 9 percent, or nearly $12 billion, of its $132 billion general fund on the corrections department. Thats up about $1 billion from prison spending two years ago. Franklin Zimring, a UC Berkeley criminal justice professor, called Browns claim about the increased share of prison spending absolutely true. Californias prison population exploded from 1980 through the late 1990s and prison building metastasized in the state, Zimring said. We went from a little over 24,000 prisoners in California prisons to over 170,000 prisoners in 2010 and 2011. Zimring attributed the increase to the states booming population during that period, tough sentencing laws, particularly 1994sThree Strikeslaw, and the national focus on drug crimes. Fewer inmates, higher costs California has sharply cut its prison population following a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court order for California to reduce prison overcrowding. The population reached a peak of163,000 inmatesin 2006, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. The state estimates it will house an average of about 119,000 prisoners this year. But as the inmate numbers have dropped, state corrections spending has continued to rise. Thats, in part, because California has the highest per capita inmate cost in the nation, at an estimated $80,000 annually for 2018-19, as we examined in arecent fact check. Theres been no corresponding reduction in prison staff as inmate numbers have fallen, causing per capita costs to spike. At the same time, prison staffing costs have increased. Jeffrey Callison, a state prisons spokesman, told us the conditions of the court order prevent California from closing prisons even as the inmate population is reduced. So long as the order is in effect we cannot close prisons because to do so would reduce our capacity, thereby pushing us back above 137.5 percent level of prison crowding, Callison said in an email. That level is tied to prison capacity and defined by the court, he said. Our ruling Gov. Jerry Brown recently claimed Californias corrections budget in 1970 was about 3 percent of the general fund. Now, its 8.9 percent, about $12 billion. Californias1970-71 fiscal year budgetsupports the first part of Browns claim, listing prison system spending as 2.8 percent of that years general fund. Browns budget proposal for this fiscal year, meanwhile, shows the corrections department is now estimated to be 9 percent of the general fund, or $12 billion. A UC Berkeley criminal justice professor told us the governors spending claim rings true, noting the states prison population exploded during the 1980s and 1990s, driven by the states overall population boom, strict criminal sentencing laws and a national focus on drug crimes. The governors numbers are on the mark and theres nothing significant missing from his statement. We rate Browns claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  E-mail reports the truth about the environmental impact of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)    OF  AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] First, do you know what ANWR is? ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Now, a comparison:  And some perspective ...  NOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA IS ... (its in the "ANWR Coastal Plain")  THIS IS WHAT THE TV People and others "GREENS" SHOW YOU WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ANWR ... and they are right ... these ARE photographs of ANWR   Isn't ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place? Well, thats not exactly the truth. Do you remember the map? The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain. Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you? What's going on here? The answer is simple. That is NOT where they are wanting to drill! This is what the proposed exploration area ACTUALLY looks like in the winter:  And this is what it ACTUALLY looks like in the summer:    HERE ARE A COUPLE SCREEN SHOTS FROM GOOGLE EARTH   As you can see, the area where they are talking about drilling is a barren wasteland.  Oh, and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife. Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the 'depleted wildlife' situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay. Don't you think that the Caribou really hate that drilling?  Here's that same spot during the winter:  Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production.  Now, why do you think that the Democrats are LYING about ANWR? Remember when Al Gore said that the government should work to ARTIFICIALLY raise gas prices to $5 a gallon? Well, Al Gore and his fellow Democrats have almost reached their goal! Now that you know that the Democrats have been lying, what are you going to do about it? You can start by forwarding this to everyone you know, so that they will know the truth. P.S.: Drilling does not "destroy." It creates jobs, resources and strengthens our economy  all while protecting our environment. Everyone benefits, even caribou. Origins:  As the price of oil continues to rise with no predictable end in sight, debates over whether the U.S. can and should be producing more oil from domestic sources have been renewed.  A primary focus of such  debates has been the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area which encompasses 19 million acres in the northeast corner of Alaska. The ANWR issue is now a political hot potato batted back and forth between proponents of exploration and development in ANWR's Coastal Plain who assert that the area could become a valuable source of domestic oil production with minimal impact on the environment, and opponents who maintain that the potential advantages to be gained from drilling for oil in ANWR are far too small to offset the despoiling (and potential devastation) of a protected wildlife area.The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR.    factors The e-mailed slide show reproduced above might serve a useful function in prompting the public to take a greater interest in all the issues surrounding the potential opening of ANWR to oil exploration, but the information it presents is scant and one-sided.  Since the ANWR issue is far too extensive and complex to cover in detail here, we'll just provide a brief summary of both sides' arguments regarding points mentioned by the e-mailed slide show, with links to sites (on both sides of the issue) that provide greater detail:  Although the ANWR is small in size compared to the entirety of Alaska, at 19 million acres it is larger than ten other states.  (As the third graphic shows, ANWR is about the size of the state of South Carolina.) Proponents point out that the proposed development area within the ANWR Coastal Plain is a relatively small patch of 2,000 acres, an area which constitutes roughly1/10,000 of the total acreage of the ANWR.  Opponents maintain that a similar drilling operation in Alaska at Prudhoe Bay was originally designated to encompass only 2,100 acres but has since expanded to a total drilling footprint of 12,000 acres spread over 640,000 acres of the North Slope. size expanded  Proponents maintain that wildlife continues to flourish amid drilling and other oil production activities in other Arctic regions and would fare just as well near ANWR exploration facilities.  Opponents assert that other North Slope oil development activities have caused an average of 504 spills per year since 1996, including "4,532 spills between 1996 and 2004 totaling more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substances." flourish spills  Proponents maintain that the proposed ANWR Coastal Plain development area is primarily a featureless, barren expanse that is frozen and windswept for most of the year, and therefore exploration and drilling activities would have minimal impact on wildlife in the immediate area (or in the greater ANWR).  Opponents assert that environmental accidents can have devastating effects far outside the limited areas in which they originally occur.  Last updated:  2 July 2008 In October 2018, a series of mail-bombs sent to high-profile Democratic party figures including former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Hillary Clinton prompted intensive news coverage, especially after investigators arrested 56-year-old Florida man Cesar Sayoc, a supporter of President Donald Trump who promoted right-wing conspiracy theories online.  Cesar Sayoc Although none of the 13 homemade bombs detonated or caused any physical injury, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray emphasized that the packages were "not hoax devices." emphasized Along with widespread news coverage, the episode engendered several conspiracy theories, most notably one which held that the bombing campaign was a hoax and a "false flag" operation orchestrated not by a right-wing extremist, but rather by liberals hoping to artificially stoke outrage against President Trump and his supporters, to the benefit of Democratic candidates in the November 2018 elections.  Promoters of the "false flag" theory claimed that their proof lay in the fact that United States Postal Service workers do not directly deliver mail to the homes of Secret Service protectees like Obama and Clinton, and that the stamps on one of the packages were not postmarked, which purportedly meant the package couldn't have been mailed via USPS, and that the story was therefore a hoax.  deliver stamps On 27 October, another strand to this theory emerged when social media users began sharing a photograph which appeared to show Sayoc posing with another man, named as "Izzy Hernandez," who the viral memes claimed was a "known Democrat" donor or supporter. According to conspiracy theorists, this proved that the pipe-bombing suspect was connected with the Democratic party, and that the entire affair was therefore a liberal-orchestrated "false flag" operation. On Facebook, Alan Reynolds posted the photograph along with this description: PIPE BOMBER SUSPECT pictured last year with Izzy Hernandez. Sayok [sic] does not appear destitute. In addition, why would a Trump enthusiast attend a banquet and have a photo OP with a Democrat Donor/Supporter? Facebook keeps trying to take down this photo,,,pls share this ASAP! The following day, the Twitter account @WhoWolfe posted a similar explanation: The fake bomber suspect is pictured here with Izzy Hernandez just last year. He doesn't appear to be destitute. Why would an alleged @realDonaldTrump enthusiast attend a banquet and take pictures in a photo OP with a known Democrat? Facebook has been taking this picture down. That version of the theory was retweeted by the prominent right-wing commentator Ann Coulter: Why do Facebook & Twitter immediately delete accounts of nuts at all? So we can rely on the media to tell us what they've posted? Why not let everyone see? https://t.co/qhmvFshdaw https://t.co/qhmvFshdaw  Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) October 28, 2018 October 28, 2018   Background The photograph is authentic, and appears to have been taken from Sayoc's Facebook profile before administrators removed it in the aftermath of his arrest. It does indeed show Sayoc posing with Izzy Hernandez, but there is a perfectly simple explanation for the connection between the two men, one which does not require any dark, politically-motivated conspiracy to subvert democracy in the United States -- they played soccer and went to college together.  Israel Abel "Izzy" Hernandez is a 2009 inductee into the North Carolina Soccer Hall of Fame, primarily for his accomplishments as a coach, but also as a player. His Hall of Fame profile describes his career as follows: Hall of Fame Izzys record of achievement is long: 9 womens high school state titles & 2 mens state titles & final NSCAA national # 1 ranking of high school teams twice, in 2006 with the girls and in 2007 with the boys & Broughton girls nationally ranked 15 consecutive years & 3 girls youth state championships (twice with the 77 CASL Spartans in U16 and U18 and once with the U18 Durham/Chapel Hill Triangle Strikers) & 2 boys youth state championships (76 Raleigh Rowdies in U13 and 74 Raleigh Express in U15) & US Youth Soccer Southern Regional champion and National Champion in 1995 with the 77 CASL Spartans, North Carolinas first youth national championship in soccer & NC Soccer Coaches Association regional coach of the year & Broughton Sports Hall of Fame & News and Observer Tar Heel of the Week.  As a young man, he played soccer for Elon College (now Elon University) in North Carolina, and before that, from 1980 to 1982, for Brevard College, a small liberal arts college in Brevard, North Carolina. One of his teammates at Brevard was Cesar Sayoc.  Brevard College's 1981 yearbook shows the two sitting next to each other in the front row of the soccer team photograph, with Hernandez wearing the number 20, and Sayoc wearing the number 12: yearbook photograph   Hernandez and Sayoc were also members of the Brevard College Catholic Club together, in 1981. (Hernandez is circled on the left, Sayoc is circled on the right): Catholic Club   Some 34 years later, Hernandez and Sayoc were photographed together again at a 2 October 2015 event in which their former soccer coach Bob Scarborough was inducted into Brevard College's Athletic Hall of Fame. inducted A photograph posted to Flickr by Brevard College shows Hernandez and Sayoc (second and fourth from left) celebrating with Scarborough (third from left.) posted  Brevard College/Flickr  In the 2015 photograph, Sayoc and Hernandez are wearing the exact same outfits shown in the photograph that went viral as part of the "false flag" conspiracy theory, strongly indicating that the two men were photographed together at no more than a celebration in honor of their former college soccer coach Bob Scarborough.  This also disproves the claim that the photograph showed the two men together "just last year." In fact, the photograph was taken in 2015, not 2017.  In the aftermath of Sayoc's arrest, Scarborough told the Raleigh, North Carolina TV station WRAL that his former player had kept in touch with him over the years, providing intermittent updates on his life and career developments, but that he hadn't heard from him since the October 2015 Hall of Fame induction celebration: WRAL Not only is there no evidence whatsoever that Sayoc and Hernandez are co-conspirators in a liberal plot to generate outrage against President Donald Trump and Republicans by engaging in a mail-bombing hoax, the only piece of evidence cited as proof of that claim actually points firmly in a very different direction. 'A Known Democrat' There is also no evidence to support the second component of this particular strand of the "false flag" conspiracy theory -- that Hernandez is a Democratic donor or supporter -- and there is some evidence to contradict it.  As we have shown, Sayoc and Hernandez knew each other from playing soccer together at college in the early 1980s, so even if either or both men were at some point supporters of or contributors to either the Democratic or Republican party, their having been photographed together could easily be explained by something other than a political conspiracy.  Even so, Hernandez does not appear to be a Democrat, at least not in any formal sense. According to records held by the North Carolina State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement, Israel Abel Hernandez is registered in Wake County as an "unaffiliated voter" (that is, as an independent.) registered His voting history shows that, aside from general elections, his only participation in a partisan primary came on 15 March 2016, when he cast a ballot in North Carolina's Republican presidential primary. In North Carolina, unaffiliated voters can only vote in one party's primary election, not both.  history primary Despite searching campaign finance records held by both the Federal Election Commission and the North Carolina State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement, we could find no record whatsoever of Hernandez having made any donations to a political candidate or committee of any kind.  We are emphatically not suggesting that Izzy Hernandez's voting history or political affiliation (or lack thereof) is of any particular meaning or relevance. However, the lack of any evidence that he is a Democratic supporter or donor even further undermines the October 2018 meme which took a photograph of two old soccer teammates reunited three decades after their college days, and attempted, without any factual basis, to twist it into a dark and violent political conspiracy. Biesecker, Michael; Braun, Stephen. "Bomb Suspect: Ex-Stripper With Cash Problems, Trump Devotion."
 The Associated Press. 28 October 2018. MacGuill, Dan. "Does USPS Never Deliver Mail Directly to People Under Secret Service Protection?"
 Snopes.com. 26 October 2018. Mikkelson, David. "Do Uncancelled Stamps Prove Mail Bombs Were Not Sent Through USPS?"
 Snopes.com. 27 October 2018. North Carolina Soccer Hall of Fame. "Israel 'Izzy' Hernandez."
 Unknown publication date. Brevard College. "The Pertelote."
 1981. Brevard College. "College Honors Distinguished Alumni, Faculty and Athletes."
 October 2015. Sweat, Candace. "'I Could've Talked Him Out of It: Former Soccer Coach Remembers Mailing Bomb Suspect."
 WRAL. 26 October 2018. In January 2020, we received multiple inquiries from readers about the accuracy of a social media meme that made striking claims about the past record of U.S. Sen. and 2020 Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders. The meme featured black-and-white photographs of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who led the Islamic revolution of 1979 and became Iran's supreme leader; former U.S. President Jimmy Carter; and Sanders, along with the following text: meme text In 1979 Iran took 70 Americans hostage for 444 days. Most [of] America united, but one politician stood aloneSocialist Workers Party leader Bernie Sanders supported Ayatollah Khomeini against the US, condemned President Carter for imperialism, and accused the hostages of being CIA spies.  Is this what Democrat voters stand for? Bernie Sanders for President?Maybe in Iran. Not in the US.    The claims contained in the meme appeared to borrow from two articles published in January 2020, just two weeks before the Democratic presidential primaries began in earnest with the Iowa caucuses.  On Jan. 16, The Daily Beast published an opinion column written by historian Ronald Radosh, which carried the headline, "When Iran Took Americans Hostage, Bernie Backed Iran's Defenders." There, Radosh wrote that Sanders "aligned himself with the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), the self-proclaimed Trotskyist revolutionary party, became its presidential elector in Vermont, and campaigned for its candidates and platform that defended the Iranian hostage seizure." column On Jan. 18, The Jerusalem Post published an article that bore the headline, "Bernie Sanders Backed a Party That Supported Iran During Hostage Crisis." The piece largely restated portions of Radosh's earlier column. article Important differences exist between the claims made in the above-displayed meme, which contained several key falsehoods, and Radosh's article, but the latter also omitted important context and made misleading assertions. Sanders and the SWP The January 2020 meme described Sanders as the "Socialist Workers Party leader." This is false. Sanders was never even a member of that party, contrary to Radosh's claim that the future U.S. senator "stood apart by joining a Marxist-Leninist party that not only pledged support for the Iranian theocracy, but also justified the hostage taking" [Emphasis is added].  A spokesperson for the Sanders campaign told Snopes, "Senator Sanders was never a member of the Socialist Workers Party." This is corroborated by several news reports from that era. In October 1980, the SWP's newsletter The Militant described Vermont as "a state where there is no branch of the Socialist Workers Party," further undermining any claim that Sanders, who has lived in Vermont since the late 1960s, was a member of the party (let alone its leader) at that time. several news reports described However, Sanders was undoubtedly affiliated with the SWP. In 1980, he served as one of three Vermont Electoral College electors on behalf of the SWP's presidential candidate and leader Andrew Pulley, a former steelworker and Vietnam War veteran from Chicago. Sanders' role and Pulley's candidacy itself were both purely symbolic. Pulley was then only 29 years old and therefore ineligible to serve as president under the U.S. Constitution, and his place on several state ballots, including Vermont, was taken by Clifton DeBerry. Between them, Pulley and DeBerry got just 46,000 votes nationwide.  electors ballots After Sanders became mayor of Burlington in 1981, running as an independent, his affiliation with Pulley and the SWP continued, and he spoke at SWP campaign events in 1982 and 1984. However, his connection with the party appears to have diminished after that, as Sanders' own political vision moved from revolutionary socialism to social democracy. spoke The SWP's 1984 presidential candidate, Mel Mason, told Washington Times in 2019 that, "We had a long-distance relationship, but that kind of changed after he ran for Congress [in 1990]. I didn't have as much contact anymore. I have a lot of respect for him, but I just don't think the programs he put forward are what workers need in this country." told It's also important to note that although Sanders supported SWP candidates for president in 1980 and 1984 and spoke at several SWP events, he did not necessarily support or endorse each of their policies or utterances. In fact, Sanders made a point of saying this in the summer of 1980, when it was first announced he would be an SWP elector in that year's presidential election. At the time, he said, "Although I am not in agreement with the SWP on all issues, I strongly support that party's attempt to become a nucleus for a national labor party, which will fight for the interests of low income and working people." said Similarly, Sanders publicly clashed with the SWP on certain issues. At a forum in Worcester, Vermont, in July 1980, he put "demanding questions" to Matilde Zimmermann, the SWP's vice presidential candidate that year, on the subject of nuclear power. According to Burlington Free Press, "the tone of the questions became almost hostile at moments." That interaction came just days after Sanders was announced as a Vermont elector for the SWP. Burlington Free Press In combination with the fact that Sanders never joined the SWP, held office in it, nor ran on an SWP ticket, this demonstrates that he was broadly supportive of the party's aims and campaigns for a period, but did not march in lockstep with each and every SWP policy or pronouncement. The SWP and the Iran Hostage Crisis During the Iran hostage crisis between 1979 and 1981, the SWP and its leader Pulley did criticize the approach of the U.S. government under then-President Jimmy Carter and at times even expressed support for positions taken by the recently installed, anti-Western, Islamic regime led by Khomeini. Broadly speaking, the SWP claimed that the Carter administration was cynically using the crisis in order to boost domestic public support for a military conflict with Iran; called on Carter to accede to the Khomeini regime's demands, including the extradition of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the U.S.-friendly former Shah of Iran who had been overthrown in the 1979 Islamic revolution and fled to the U.S.; and claimed that the U.S. Embassy, which was stormed in the hostage-taking, had been a hub of American intelligence activities, and some of the hostages were spies.  claimed In November 1980, Pulley and his former running mate Zimmermann published a statement calling on Carter to accede to the Iranian regime's demands, calling them "simple and just," and said the U.S. should "end its attacks on the Iranian revolution": statement Washington's refusal to accept the offer of the Iranian parliament for releasing the hostages shows once again the U.S. government's total lack of concern for their safety and wellbeing. The proposals from Iran are simple and just: no U.S. military or political involvement in Iran; unfreeze the Iranian assets; cancel all claims against Iran; and return the shah's stolen wealth. If granted, the hostages would immediately be freed. [...] We should demand that the U.S. government immediately agree to the proposals from Iran-with no strings attached-and end its attacks on the Iranian revolution. A year earlier, Pulley issued the following statement: "American people oppose U.S. support to shah. We will fight any U.S. attempt to intervene in Iran. Long live Iranian revolution!"  statement We did not find any public statements by Sanders on the subject of the Iran hostage crisis, so the claim that he expressed support for Khomeini was false, and a clear case of "guilt by association" with the utterances of Pulley and the SWP being transferred on to Sanders because of his links to both. A spokesperson for Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign indicated he was opposed to SWP policy on Iran at that time, telling Snopes: "Senator Sanders did not think the hostages were spies nor did he support their captivity. Any suggestion otherwise is nonsense."  However, Sanders' disagreement with Pulley and the SWP on the Iran hostage crisis was demonstrably not strong enough to prompt him to sever ties with either, given that the future U.S. representative and senator continued to speak at SWP campaign events after the hostage crisis and supported the party's presidential candidate four years later.  Image caption: Bernie Sanders, then Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in his office at City Hall on March 1, 1985. Radosh, Ronald. "When Iran Took Americans Hostage, Bernie Backed Iran's Defenders."
  The Daily Beast. 16 January 2020. The Jerusalem Post. "Bernie Sanders Backed a Party That Supported Iran During Hostage Crisis."
  18 January 2020. Berney, Louis.  "FBI Probes Mayor to Discredit Witness."
  The Burlington Free Press. 8 April 1981. The Burlington Free Press. "Pulley to Explain Socialist Suit Against FBI, CIA."
  20 May 1981. Abbey, Alan. "Burlington Immigration Office May Get Role in Socialist Probe."
  The Burlington Free Press. 21 May 1981. Rose, Andy. "Vermont Workers, Students Welcome Pulley."
  The Militant. 24 October 1980. Kingsley, Robert. "Socialists Launch Campaign to Get Candidates on Ballot."
  The Rutland Daily Herald. 11 July 1980. Simonson, Joseph. "Bernie Sanders Campaigned for Marxist Party in Reagan Era."
  The Washington Times. 30 May 2019. Davis, Neil. "Candidacy No Shield for Zimmermann."
 The Burlington Free Press. 20 July 1980. The Militant. "Protests Say: 'No War Against Iran!'"
  30 November 1979. Pulley, Andrew; Zimmermann, Matilde. "Socialists: 'Meet Just Proposal of Iranian People.'"
  The Militant. 14 November 1980. A reader forwarded anemailto us in which state Rep. Senfronia Thompson urged a boycott of Macys department stores on the day after Thanksgiving 2013. The fact that Macy's doesn't support equal pay for women should stop you from shopping there on Black Friday, the Houston Democrat wrote, saying that her equal-pay proposal cleared the Legislature earlier this year, but then Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto the law, which he ultimately did. Thompsons House Bill950was among 24 bills PerryvetoedJune 14, 2013. It would have created state law similar to 2009s federal Lilly Ledbetter Act, which gave plaintiffs more time to sue over pay discrimination in federal courts. AnAug. 6, 2013,news storyin theHouston Chroniclereported that Texas Retailers Association members including Macys and Krogers had written Perry in May asking him to kill the legislation because, they said, it would lead to open-ended litigation and duplicate federal law. Thompson spokeswoman Milda Mora told us by phone that the representative learned of the letters from theHouston Chroniclereporter in August and checked with the governors office, which provided her with copies that Moraemailedto us. One written on Macys letterhead (clickhereor scroll down to view it) concluded, The federal requirements under Lilly Ledbetter are unnecessary and would be harmful to Texas employers. We urge you to veto this legislation. Macys spokeswoman Bethany Charlton confirmed that her company sent the May 31, 2013, letter, which was signed by a company vice president. By email, Charlton said the company absolutely supports equal pay for equal work among men and women but believes existing laws provide strong remedies for discrimination. Perrys logic was similar: House Bill 950 duplicates federal law, which already allows employees who feel they have been discriminated against through compensation to file a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said his June 14, 2013,veto statement. Progress Texas, the pro-Democratic organization that distributed Thompsons email and is organizing theboycott,disputesPerrys statement that the bill would have duplicated federal law, saying that the Ledbetter protections need to be codified in state law for them to apply to cases in state courts. The groups executive director, Ed Espinoza, told us by email that his group launched a boycott of Macys and other retailers when the news broke in August. An Aug. 7, 2013,Chroniclenews blog postsaid Thompson took part in that boycott also, canceling a planned appearance at a Macys store to mark the states annual sales-tax holiday. Mora said that Thompson, who was quoted in an Aug. 9, 2013 Texas Public Radionews storyas saying she had previously been a card-packing member of Macys, but had not shopped there since the letters became public. Our ruling Thompson said Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto her equal pay measure. As the Houston newspaper reported, Macys wrote the governor May 31, 2013, saying We urge you to veto this legislation. The claim is True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In July 2022, a user of Snopes' Facebook tip group asked us if a viral photograph of a sign reading "The inventor of autocorrect has died the funnel will be held tomato" was real or if it had been digitally edited.  Snopes' Facebook tip group  The skepticism surrounding this sign is certainly understandable. After all, we've covered dozens of other photos featuring digitally altered verbiage on signs.  covered dozens other photos featuring digitally altered verbiage signs This picture shows a sign in the parking lot of a National Vacuum store in Gainesville, Florida. Here's a screenshot from Google Streeview that shows the sign at a similar angle.  National Vacuum store in Gainesville, Florida  This store regularly uses its sign to display humorous messages. Using Google Street View, we were able to find several other sign displays outside this store stretching back to 2007. While we didn't find an image of the "founder of autocorrect" sign, we did find a number of similar idioms, such as "It's Spring! We're so excited we wet our plants," "talk is cheap until you hire a lawyer," and "I can tell people are judgmental just by looking at them."  We reached out to National Vacuum for comment and they confirmed that the message "the inventor of autocorrect has died. The funnel will be held tomato" had previously been displayed on their sign. A spokesperson said: "Yes, we have used this sign message in the past." Who invented autocorrect? Did they die? Will the funnel be held tomato?  The history of autocorrect can be traced back to the early 1990s, when Microsoft implemented a new feature in their word processing program, Word 6.0. There have been numerous improvements and iterations of this idea since then, so there isn't really a single "inventor" of the feature. According to Wired, the "closest thing [autocorrect] has to an individual creator" would be Dean Hachamovitch, who worked on the feature for Microsoft in 1993. According to Wired When Hachamovitch first joined Microsoft, he was given a job on the Word team. This was back in the early '90s. Word processing was at a crossroads, split into factions. On one side were the people who wanted adornments and frillsimproved desktop publishing, color separation, and the like. On the other side was the functionality gang, with whom Hachamovitch threw in his lot. This camp simply wanted to help people get out of their own way. As Hachamovitch saw it, the main thing that people do on a word processor is typeand typing, in his estimation, is a matter of a little bit of creativity and a whole lot of scutwork. He could improve the typing experience by delivering us from scut. His aim was to make our typing sleek and invisible, smooth as speaking from a teleprompter. Ken Kocienda also deserves partial credit for inventing autocorrect, as he developed the feature for the original iPhone.  developed the feature for the original iPhone As of this writing, Hachamovitch and Kocienda are both still with us. Engber, Daniel. Who Made That Autocorrect? The New York Times, 6 June 2014. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/magazine/who-made-that-autocorrect.html. Lewis-Kraus, Gideon. The Fasinatng Fascinating History of Autocorrect. Wired. www.wired.com, https://www.wired.com/2014/07/history-of-autocorrect/. Accessed 8 July 2022. Stern, Joanna. Autocorrect Explained: Why Your IPhone Adds Annoying Typos While Fixing Others. Wall Street Journal, 27 Apr. 2022. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/autocorrect-explained-why-your-iphone-adds-annoying-typos-while-fixing-others-11651051891. Update [July 12, 2022]: Status changed to "True" based on new information. When LeBron James returns to Cleveland as a member of the Miami Heat during the upcoming NBA season, a small slice of his game-day check will be carved out and handed over to the city of Cleveland.Taxing the income of visiting professional athletes  the jock tax, as some derisively call it  is a common practice around the country that was incorporated into Ohio law in 2000.Ohios cities with major professional sports franchises have been collecting the tax for years, but recently the jock tax has become an issue in the state auditors race, a closely watched election because the winner will sit on the five-member Apportionment Board that will redraw Ohios legislative districts next year.Republican Dave Yost, in his quest to paint Democratic opponent David Pepper as a serial taxer, has blamed Pepper for instituting a jock tax when he was a Cincinnati city councilman. (To be clear, the state auditor cannot levy taxes. )Pepper also kicked off a jock tax, imposing a levy on the sports and entertainment industry, according to a video Yosts campaign produced in August.PolitiFact Ohio asked Yosts campaign to back up the claim. It pointed to legislation Pepper sponsored as a city councilman in 2002 that called on Cincinnati to begin collecting income taxes from visiting professional athletes and entertainers. The motion passed and Cincinnati began collecting the tax.Pepper, now a county commissioner in Cincinnatis Hamilton County, denies responsibility for imposing the tax. Pepper instead blamed state lawmakers who included the jock tax in a comprehensive municipal tax bill passed in 2000. Pepper said that bill, HB 483, forced cities to tax those athletes earnings.We took a closer look at HB 483 and found a provision that prohibits cities from taxing the income of anyone who works in a city for 12 or fewer days in a calendar year. An exception to that rule, however, is a professional entertainer or professional athlete  as may be reasonably defined by the municipal corporation, the bill reads. That means an Ohio city can tax a professional athletes pay, no matter how many days he works there. (The provision originally was part of another bill that passed in 2000, HB 477, but was thrown into HB 483 for technical reasons. )While Pepper argued state law requires Cincinnati to collect the jock tax, experts we talked to said the 2000 state law placed Cincinnati under no obligation to do so.Its up the city, said John Mahoney, deputy director of the nonpartisan Ohio Municipal League, which represents the collective interests of the states municipalities.Cities, under home rule powers, generally have the final say when deciding whose income to tax. State lawmakers can only limit this authority, Mahoney said. The Ohio Municipal League, he noted, worked with lawmakers on the issue during the legislative process.Don Mottley, a former Republican state representative who sponsored both HB 483 and HB 477 and chaired the House Ways and Means committee hearings on each bill, agreed with Mahoney.Theres nothing in there that requires them to tax athletes and entertainers, Mottley said. It just permits them to.Mottley left the General Assembly at the end of 2000 and began practicing law. He also is a former chairman of the Ohio State Bar Associations taxation committee.He represented the Cincinnati Bengals before the Cincinnati City Council in 2002 in opposition of Peppers legislation. The Bengals feared Cincinnatis tax on opposing players would prompt more NFL cities to pass similar laws, Mottley said.But Cincinnati was far from the first city to collect a jock tax. Cleveland has been collecting the tax for more than three decades, and Columbus, home to an NHL team and a Major League Soccer team, has been doing so since the mid-1990s.In his defense, Pepper said the video makes it seem as if he created a never-before-seen tax. Pepper said he wanted Cincinnati to be in step with state law that allowed it to tax visiting athletes income. He said city law mandates taxing all qualifying wage earners.It is true that Pepper did not create the jock tax: It was collected in other cities before he pushed for it in Cincinnati. And a claim in the video that  CNN called it one of the strangest taxes in America is an overstatement. The jock tax was included in a 2005 CNNmoney.com article that described, in general terms, how athletes income is taxed in different states. The story did not mention Pepper or the city of Cincinnati.However, Peppers legislation, while beneficial to the city budget, did institute the tax collection in Cincinnati. And the experts we talked to said collecting the tax was the citys prerogative. Pepper cant duck responsibility for starting the tax in Cincinnati.We find the statement True.