Are Amazon workers eligible for government assistance in the form of food stamps?
Jeff Bezos, founder and chief executive officer of online retailing giant Amazon.com, became the world's richest person in October 2017, according to Forbes magazine. And in January 2018, Bezos' company opened the first "Amazon Go"  a new kind of store with no checkout required  in Seattle, Washington, to considerable fanfare: Forbes Amazon Go  Amid a wave of increased press coverage and scrutiny, a viral meme made a number number of claims about Amazon in January 2018: meme  A spokesperson for Amazon confirmed the fact that the company's new grocery store, Amazon Go, does not accept SNAP benefits or food stamps as a form of payment. The source of the claim about Amazon workers receiving food stamps was a January 2018 report by the nonprofit group PolicyMatters Ohio, which estimated that roughly 700 Amazon workers in Ohio (more than 10 percent of the company's employees in the state) receive Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program benefits: report As of last August, 1,430 Amazon employees or family members were getting assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), according to the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services. In August, the average Ohio family receiving SNAP contained just more than two people. Based on that average, more than 700 Amazon workers received benefits that month, or more than one in every 10 of those Ohioans employed by the company. PolicyMatters Ohio arrived at that estimate by finding the number of Ohio food stamp recipients who are part of a household where someone works for Amazon (1,430), then dividing that by 2.02 (the average size of a household on food stamps in Ohio at that time). The resulting estimate is about 700 workers, or 11.8 of Amazon's Ohio workforce. We were unable to find any research or data on Amazon workers' availing themselves of food stamps in other states.  average size PolicyMatters Ohio sent us figures to corroborate their claims, which they received from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. (That data is available for download in spreadsheet form here.) Further, whether or not an individual qualifies for food stamps is determined by more than just income. Having a gross monthly household income at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty limit is an important factor. However, you can also qualify for SNAP benefits with an income above the poverty limit if someone in your household is disabled or elderly, and the poverty limit is pro-rated depending on the size of your household. here factor Another factor to consider is whether a worker is employed by Amazon on a full-time or part-time basis. Someone whose only source of income was their part-time job at an Amazon fulfillment center would earn a lower monthly income than a full-time worker in a similar position, even if they received the same hourly wage. This circumstance might well qualify someone for food stamps even if their hourly wage at Amazon were otherwise not too bad. In an email, an Amazon spokesperson told us that Amazon full-time hourly employees in Ohio earn between $14.50 and $15 an hour as a starting wage with regular pay increases plus Amazon stock and performance based bonuses." On 1 February 2018, Amazon's jobs web site listed seven open warehouse positions in Ohio. Only one was full-time, a description which a company spokesperson told us entails 40 hours of work per week. The hourly wage for the part-time jobs ranged from $10.50 to $11.75, while a "reduced time" position came with a starting rate of between $14.50 and $17 an hour. The full-time position had a starting hourly wage of between $14.50 and $15. positions According to a major 2016 report by the non-profit Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a group that advocates for more sustainable community development, Amazon's warehouse workers across 11 metropolitan areas in the United States earned, on average, 15 percent lower than could be expected for a worker in that industry (page 39). report Institute for Local Self-Reliance page 39 Amazon told us this analysis was "flawed," because it compared Amazon wages with "traditional warehouse jobs and compensation," claiming that the appropriate comparison would be between Amazon wages and retail wages, because "that industry more closely resembles the environment of an Amazon fulfillment center." Additionally, the report's authors said it was difficult to ascertain exactly what proportion of warehouse workers were on permanent contracts, and what proportion were temps, but estimated (based on news reports and the industry average) that the permanent to temporary ratio was roughly 60/40.  A spokesperson for the company gave contradictory figures, saying: "Throughout the year on average, 90 percent of associates across the companys U.S. fulfillment network are regular, full-time employees. That applies for states like Ohio." The spokesperson confirmed that "regular" means permanent. The ILSR criticized Amazon for using the label "seasonal"  which has connotations of the annual retail holiday rush  to describe the temporary positions it fills year-round.  Amazon has also previously come under fire for what have been described as difficult working conditions. In its 2016 report, the ILSR summarized employment at the company's fulfillment centers as "grueling work for lower pay than average": Employees describe running across warehouses that sprawl the distance of 17 football fields; production quotas, or rates, that can be set 60 percent higher than the industry standard; and a disciplinary system that tracks workers every action and inflicts points for any deviation from Amazons standard. Underlying these conditions is Amazons fundamental approach to its warehouse workers. The companys warehouses are finely-tuned machines, and the company creates conditions such that its workers are expected to be parts of that machine. The result is a work environment that is profoundly dehumanizing. In response to these descriptions, a spokesperson for the company told us: Like most companies, we have performance expectations for every Amazon employee and we measure actual performance against those expectations. Associate performance is measured and evaluated over a long period of time as we know that a variety of things could impact the ability to meet expectations in any given day or hour. We support people who are not performing to the levels expected with dedicated coaching to help them improve. While the meme says that Amazon grossed $128 billion in sales "last year," that number is not quite accurate. For one thing, Amazon's 2017 earnings had not yet been published in January 2018, when the meme was created. Instead, Grit Post, where the meme appears to have originated, said in a list of sources that they had used Amazon's 2016 numbers. Amazon actually had net (not gross) sales of $136 billion in 2016, according to the company's full year financial results. This means gross sales (which were not reported) were even higher than that, and certainly higher than the $128 billion claimed in the meme.  sources results Amazon's sales for 2017 are likely to be astronomical. Based on the company's predictions for the final three months of the year, Amazon's full-year net sales in 2017 might reach around $178 billion.  predictions Vinton, Kate.  "Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos Is the Richest Person in the World  Again."
  Forbes.  27 October 2017. Kelly, Heather.  "Inside Amazon Go: The Store of the Future."
  CNN.  26 January 2018. Schiller, Zach.  "More Ohio Amazon Workers Relying on Food Aid."
  Policy Matters Ohio.  5 January 2018. Office of Fiscal and Monitoring Services.  "Public Assistance Monthly Statistics Report  August 2017."
  August 2017. LeVecchia, Olivia and Stacy Mitchell.  "Amazon's Stranglehold: How the Company's Tightening Grip Is Stifling Competition, Eroding Jobs, and Threatening Communities."
  Institute for Local Self-Reliance.  November 2016.
One of the key issues in the global warming debate is whether modern scientists have sufficient data and tools to determine that current warming trends are indicative of long-term climatic changes rather than relatively short-term weather pattern variability.  A text widely shared online seemingly provides an example of the pitfalls of mistaking the latter for the former, purportedly reproducing a 1922 newspaper article warning that the Arctic ocean was experiencing a radical change in climatic conditions which was warming its waters, melting ice, and disrupting wildlife: The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.  I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922.  As reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post  88 years ago! The text in the above example is a genuine transcription of a 1922 newspaper article, an Associated Press account which appeared on page 2 of the Washington Post on 2 November of that year: That article in turn was based on information relayed by the American consul in Norway to the U.S. State Department in October 1922 and published in the Monthly Weather Review: Monthly Weather Review The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fisherman, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto underheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface. In August, 1922, the Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spitzbergen and Bear Island under the leadership of Dr. Adolf Hoel, lecturer on geology at the University of Christiania. Its purpose was to survey and chart the lands adjacent to the Norwegian mines on those islands, take soundings of the adjacent waters, and make other oceanographic investigations. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 29' in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus. The character of the waters of the great polar basin has heretofore been practically unknown. Dr. Hoel reports that he made a section of the Gulf Stream at  81 north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters. These show the Gulf Stream very warm, and it could be traced as a surface current till beyond the 81st parallel. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time. In connection with Dr. Hoel's report, it is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigsten, who has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, that since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that to-day the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1868 to 1917. Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared. As interesting as this nearly century-old article might be from a modern perspective, however, it isn't substantive evidence either for or against the concept of anthropogenic global warming.  As documented elsewhere, the warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen, not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole. elsewhere Associated Press.  "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."
  The Washington Post.   2 November 1922  (p. 2). During a campaignspeechin Milwaukee, former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold called for gradually raising the federal minimum wage to $15. It is now set at $7.25 an hour. And without mentioning Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson by name, the Democrat attacked Johnson. The two are poised for a rematch in 2016. Now, my likely opponent, the incumbent senator, opposes entirely -- get this, opposes entirely -- a federal minimum wage, Feingold said Aug. 18, 2015. At least for Americans -- apparently he has some openness about guest workers -- disrespecting the hard work and dignity of too many working Wisconsinites. Johnson has oftenspoken againstraising the minimum wage. But does he oppose there being any general federal minimum wage law? Hot topic -- $10, $12 or $15 Raising the federal minimum wage is a common campaign plank among Democrats. A month before Feingolds speech, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president,introducedlegislation for an increase to $15 an hour.Meanwhile, Democratic presidential contender Martin OMalley also backs $15, while front runner Hillary Clinton, like President Barack Obama, has expressed support for $12. Many Republicans -- including Johnson and one of the leading GOP candidates for president, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker -- oppose a raise. Walker argued in 2014 that minimum-wage jobs are overwhelmingly for young people starting out in the work force, a statementwe rated False.We found the best estimates were that 24 percent to 55 percent of such jobs are held by teenagers and young adults. But later in the year, PolitiFact National ratedMostly Truea claim by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would destroy between 500,000 and 1 million jobs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had said that roughly 500,000 workers could lose their jobs, but that most likely the range was between very few to 1 million. What Johnson said To back Feingolds claim, his campaign citedcommentsJohnson made more than a year earlier, at a July 2, 2014 WisPolitics luncheon in Milwaukee. A member of the audience asked Johnson: What should the federal minimum wage be? Or should there not be a minimum wage? Johnson replied: Shouldnt be one. The only area that I would agree with minimum wage is in immigration reform, the guest worker program. I'd be 100 percent supportive of a minimum wage -- kind of industry specific, maybe regionally specific -- for guest workers, so that we're not creating incentives for employers to bring in immigrants to lower the price of labor. He added: In the general economy, you get government involved in making market decisions -- first of all, they're going to get it wrong. For a minimum wage, you will actually reduce the number of jobs available. What you don't want to do -- if you're concerned about poverty, if you're concerned about providing opportunity -- you don't want to rip the bottom rung of the ladder of opportunity away from people. And thats what you do. (The federal government has so-called guest workerprogramsthat allow foreign nationals to fill temporary jobs, both agricultural and non-agricultural.) Johnson did not dispute Feingolds claim. His campaign emailed us a statement that said in part that Johnson worked for minimum wage on his first job and knows minimum wage laws are here to stay and we should design them to make sure they dont hurt the very people they are designed to help. Johnson opposes a raise to $15, the statement added, but does not seek to get rid of the federal minimum wage -- it's here to stay. Our rating Feingold says Johnson opposes entirely a federal minimum wage, except perhaps for guest workers. It may not be a position Johnson has stated often, but when asked in July 2014 whether there should be a federal minimum wage, Johnson said there should not be one, other than perhaps one for guest workers. And while he may not be trying to repeal the wage, Johnson didnt dispute the accuracy of Feingolds claim -- that he is against having a federal minimum, except perhaps for guest workers coming in from outside the United States. We rate Feingolds statement True. On 25 January 2017, RedStateWatcher.com published an article misleadingly titled "Popular Restaurant Chain Offering to Fund Planned Parenthood with Portion of Every Sale."  Readers predictably inferred from the headline that the Chili's restaurant chain was "fund[ing] Planned Parenthood ... with every sale," prompting an avalanche of angry social media comments on the chain's Facebook page.  article page Many articles popular on Facebook are viewed only in news feeds, meaning that many users may have seen the headline but did not read the underlying article: Ok. Im really upset over this. Chilis is one of my favorite restaurants, but I may need to seriously rethink my dining options. Chilis restaurants in two states have apparently joined with Planned Parenthood to raise funds for the infanticide mill. The article cited an anti-abortion blog but didn't link to any official information from Chili's announcing or confirming the purported Planned Parenthood initiative. None of the versions we could find specified the origin of the claim, and the only substantiation appeared to be a screenshot of a since-deleted post:   We contacted Chili's media relations department for clarification about whether the chain was donating 15 percent of every check to Planned Parenthood in two states, or in any location. In a statement we received from Chilis Grill & Bar, a representative for the chain explained: At Chilis, we have a longstanding history and take pride in giving back to unite our local communities together. We recognize every community is unique, and encourage our restaurant managers and franchise partners to support causes that help bring communities together and leave a positive impact on our valued Guests, neighbors, friends and families we serve. Yesterday, we learned that an independent franchise partner of Chilis in Indiana and Kentucky made the decision to host a Chilis Give Back Event on behalf of Planned Parenthood Indiana and Kentucky. While our franchise partner had the best intentions; we have received growing feedback and concern from community members regarding the Give Back Event. This feedback does not reflect Chilis focus on bringing communities together and the event was never intended to be viewed as a partisan event or political statement, therefore we, along with our franchise partner, have decided to cancel the event.  We will more clearly communicate the focus of Chilis charitable giving efforts, so that our restaurant managers and franchise partners can feel empowered to support local organizations that bring communities together. The Chili's chain at no point had a plan to donate 15 percent of every check to Planned Parenthood. Rather, a single independent franchisee planned to host a "Chili's Give Back" event in support of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, an initiative that Chili's and the franchisee canceled after myriad objections. The backlash was similar to that stemming from prior claims that Olive Garden "funded" Planned Parenthood (false), and that Macy's had stopped "funding" the organization (unproven on both counts). Olive Garden Macy's Claim:  A woman named Lana obtained a late-term abortion because she learned she was carrying a male fetus. PROBABLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2015] This has been going viral in my Facebook feed lately, and some fairly reputable sources have started reporting on it, and I have been unable to verify any of the sources. The first time I saw it it was referenced in a scathing pro-life article that blanket stereotyped feminists based on it. The original article is very difficult to access from all the attention Could you please look into the validity of it? It has the air of being created for purely for shock value and attention, and for use with the purpose of supporting right wing politics. Origins:  On 17 January 2015, the website Injustice Stories published an article purportedly  article penned by a woman named Lana who claimed to have terminated her pregnancy at the five-month mark because she learned the fetus was male. Unnoticed at first, the claim about "Lana" and her questionable decision to obtain a late-term abortion achieved traction when sites such as Daily Caller and the Huffington Post published articles about it after taking the single-source story at face value (and apparently without any attempt at verification) in early February 2015. Daily Caller Huffington Post Both those publications' articles quoted portions of the original, which became increasingly difficult to access due to a traffic spike. Daily Caller paraphrased the original thusly:  Lana, who only uses her first name, appears to be a child of privilege. She boasts of involvement in "fighting for women's rights" being all-consuming, "even to the point of eschewing a career." Yet that lack of a career hasn't stopped her from traveling to "many different places" to continue that "fight." She tells the story of a flight to an Occupy Wall Street event in San Francisco where she screamed "Assault" because the man sitting next to her said "B******* like you need to learn their place." Putting the unlikeliness of that exchange aside, Lana then demanded to be moved to another seat. That's when she was told the only empty seats were "both back in economy." At which point she demanded the man be moved. The encounter left her "having felt as though I had been verbally and emotionally raped." If the premise (which included an unemployed woman who traveled the world first class) didn't give one pause, the next portion might have. In the original post, the writer claimed she learned the sex of her unborn child via ultrasound, and after three days of soul searching opted to abort the pregnancy: By the third day, I started regaining some of my mental strength and knew what I had to do. I couldn't bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is. It didn't matter that I would be raising a son, he would still come into contact with boys, men, perhaps even the suit jockey who would inevitably twist his carefully constructed upbringing with their kindness. He would think "These men aren't so bad, why would mom say that they are holding me down?" Not all men are bad, my driver showed genuine concern for my well-being that day and I may have taken my anger out on him. That may have been uncalled for. But I knew what I had to do. A few days later, I went in for the procedure, as it was fairly later in my pregnancy, I was aware there were certain risks, but it went off without a hitch. My body's betrayal was no more, I was free, and for the first time since the airplane incident, I felt strong. I had done something positive, something that would actually make a difference, something good, even though as I would find out, many others wouldn't see it that way. Missing from the account were any identifying details about the timeframe in which the purported abortion occurred, the general locality, or any other details or information regarding the procedure. In fact, the process of terminating a pregnancy after the twenty-week mark is far more complex and risky than a first-trimester abortion, and women who have experienced it are unlikely to describe it as "without a hitch." Inconsistencies aside, the site Injustice Stories was virtually unknown before the implausible story of Lana's abortion was published. That's probably because a  domain lookup revealed the domain was registered on the same day Lana's story was posted. Furthermore, in order to read the entirety of the article, site visitors were forced to share the page on social media (which in turn boosted its visibility incrementally before it caught the eye of larger news sources). The tale's lack of plausibility, combined with the use of a brand-new site to publish it, indicated the account was likely a troll for pageviews, not a real-life account representing the sordid state of feminism. While many skeptical readers believed the hoax was aimed at promoting an anti-abortion agenda, it's also possible the site's purveyor fabricated the tale primarily to generate outrage-based clicks. Last updated:   10 February 2015 Supporters of a California ballot measure that would remove some of Proposition 13s tax protections say claims shared thousands of times on Facebook and other social media platforms have distorted their initiative. The campaign for theCalifornia Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020, also known as the split-roll measure,is still gathering signatures to qualify for the November ballot. It is backed by a group of union and social justice organizations. If approved by voters, the measure would hike taxes on factories, stores and other commercial and industrial real estate by requiring they pay property tax based on current market value rather than the value of the property when it was purchased. It would raise an estimated $7.5 billion to $12 billion annually, according to ananalysisby the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office. The money would be distributed to schools and local governments. The proposed ballot measure, however, would not touch tax protections for homeowners. Yet many claims on social media suggest the initiative would repeal all parts of Prop. 13, stoking concerns that residential property taxes could spike. Heres one example posted on Facebook Dec. 31, 2019:  A similar Facebook postby Bakersfield Tuff, a media company focused on racing and rodeo, was shared more than 2,200 times. Others have appeared on the platforms Next Door and We Chat, according to the campaign for the initiative. Do these claims distort the truth? We set out on a fact check to find out. Background on Prop. 13 In 1978, voters approved Prop. 13, which slashed property taxes and limited how much they could go up. It also tied tax rates to a propertys purchase price, rather than to the fluctuations of Californias real estate market, ensuring homeowners greater financial stability. The lawremains popularamong homeowners and business groups, who argue it allows neighborhoods to stay intact and older residents on fixed-incomes to remain in their homes rather than being forced out by high tax bills. Groups such asCalifornians to Stop Higher Property Taxeshave warned that removing Prop. 13s commercial tax protections will lead companies to pass along any increased tax burden to consumers. Critics of Prop. 13, on the other hand, say the law has cut too deeply into the foundation of tax revenue for local governments. Social Media Claims Completely False The campaign spearheading the November ballot measure contacted PolitiFact about the social media claims. They are completely false, said Alex Stack, spokesperson for theinitiative. It would completely protect and exempt all residential property, that means homeowners, renters and seniors. Thats backed up by the initiatives officialtitle and summaryprepared by the Attorney Generals office. That document says the measure exempts residential properties; agricultural properties; and owners of commercial and industrial properties with combined value of $3 million or less. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli) Becerra's Role The social media posts claimed Becerra was putting together plans to eliminate Prop. 13. Theres no evidence to substantiate that. Becerra and others attorneys general, however, have been criticized for drafting misleading ballot measure titles and summaries. For example,Becerra wasaccused of giving an earlier version of this measure a friendly write-up. But attorneys general do not initiate ballot measures. A spokesperson for Becerra declined to directly address the social media posts. Wesley Hussey, a political science professor at Sacramento State University, said the claim about Becerra planning to repeal Prop. 13 is clearly wrong and described the rest of the information as cleverly fuzzy. Its very intelligently written, he said of the posts, suggesting they may have originated with a political operative. Only one or two spots are wrong. A lot is political opinion. Theres no doubting the ballot measures significance, Hussey added. It would be a dramatic revision to Prop. 13. If passed, it would be by far the biggest change weve seen since voters approved the law, he said. Keith Smith is a political science professor at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, where he studies elections and voting behavior. He agreed the claim about Becerra was technically wrong. But given that the initiative represents a big change to Prop. 13, some voters may see it as a gateway to repealing the measure altogether. Asked if social media posts were accurate, he replied: It depends on your perspective. Is [Prop. 13] going away? No, its not going away. Is [the ballot measure] proposing to do away with some aspect of Prop. 13 that currently exists? Yes. The claims published on Facebook and other sites, Smith explained, could be more convincing to voters than any details in the ballot measure. Earlier this month,ABC 10 Sacramento examined similar claimsand found theres no effort to eliminate Prop. 13. Adding to the confusion about the proposed November ballot measure, theres a voter initiative on Californias March primary ballot calledProposition 13, the School and College Facilities Bond. But it has nothing to do with the landmark measure of the same name passed four decades ago. A spokesman for the California Secretary of States Office said that the numbers assigned to propositions are reused through the years, sometimes leading to duplicates. Our Ruling Social media posts claimed a November ballot measure would repeal Californias Prop. 13, and that Attorney General Becerra is putting together plans to eliminate the historic law. The proposed measure would undo Prop. 13s tax protections for commercial and industrial properties with a value over $3 million. It would be a major change to the law. But homeowners, small businesses and agricultural properties would not lose their Prop. 13 tax safeguards. Thats spelled out in the measures official statetitle and summary document. While Becerras office writes the legal titles and summaries for voter initiatives, the attorney general does not put forward ballot measures. Theres no evidence Becerra is trying to eliminate Prop. 13. In the end, the social media posts capture the real concern about potential changes to Prop. 13, but they also greatly misrepresent the specific changes the November ballot measure would make to it. We rate their claims about repealing Prop. 13 as False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Read more about Prop. 13, its history and efforts to change it in'The Block That Prop. 13 Built,' a collaboration between CapRadio, CALmattersand public radio stations across California. Email us at[email protected]with feedback or contact us onTwitterorFacebook. Also, were starting a new project calledAsk PolitiFact California.Is there something in California government or politics that we should fact-check next? Send us a question, and one of our reporters and fact-checkers might reach out to find the answer. Just when we thought we'd had our fill of debate-related conspiracies, a new one came along, this one in the form of a video purportedly documenting that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and moderator Lester Holt had colluded to rig the first presidential debate through a system of secret hand signals: Scratching ones face is one of the oldest signals in the book. You can be sure if this was a blackjack table and the house noticed a player making similar signals to a dealer theyd be investigated.  When the alt-right web site True Pundit shared the video, they did so along with the additional claim that Clinton had never made similar gestures in previous debates, campaign appearances, or speeches: Before critics view this video and scream Conspiracy, True Pundit cross referenced Clintons speeches, campaign appearances and her 2008 debate performances against President Obama. According to that analysis, Clinton never previously used these hand motions to supposedly scratch her face. In fact, she rarely touches her face at all. (So, you haters can save the trouble of instructing people to remove their tin-foil hats.) The above-displayed video does not provide any evidence that Hillary Clinton and Lester Holt communicated via hand signals so that Clinton could indicate to Holt when she wanted him to call on her so she could get in a "zinger." The creator of the video simply strung together several unrelated events  Clinton scratching her face, Holt making a comment, Clinton replying to Trump  and then claimed that they were somehow connected to a furtive signaling plot without providing any proof. But before we dig deeper into the video, let's look at the accompanying claims about it from True Pundit and Infowars. Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for decades. She was the First Lady of Arkansas in 1983, the First Lady of the United States in 1993, a U.S. Senator in 2001, a presidential candidate in 2008, Secretary of State in 2009, and and a presidential candidate again in 2016. It is simply ridiculous to claim that Clinton never once touched her face during a speech, campaign rally, or debate:  Clinton touched her face during speech   It should be noted that Hillary Clinton was not the only one making these gestures during the first presidential debate:   It should also be noted that (as shown in the image at the head of this page) the two candidates were physically separated on the stage, and therefore in order to catch the supposed "signals" from Hillary Clinton, moderator Lester Holt  who didn't have the advantage of the split-screen shot presented to television viewers  would had to have been rather obviously watching her even when she was not speaking. If Donald Trump truly "dominated the early part of the debate" but then lost his advantage, the more logical explanation is that his opponent's strategy to throw him off his game simply worked as expected: strategy The quiet Mr. Trump took the first shift, presenting a general-election version of his forceful campaign persona minus the bluster, insults and defenses of his anatomy. He pushed his case firmly, hitting his campaigns focal points on the economy and trade. defenses of his anatomy But it didnt take long for Mrs. Clinton to find the other Mr. Trump under that thin second skin. Her needling began immediately. She referred to her opponent as Donald, where he pointedly called her Secretary Clinton. (Yes, is that O.K.? he asked at his first reference to her.) She referred to his starting a business with a $14 million loan from his father, which Mr. Trump preferred to call a very small loan. The digs targeted Mr. Trumps status and founding mythos, triggering his image-protection reflex. He became combative and rattled, letting his opponent lead him down rhetorical detours (at one point he revived an old feud with Rosie ODonnell) knowing that he would follow his ingrained ABCs: always be counterpunching. It was Tony Soprano vs. Dr. Melfi, TVs biggest antihero blustering against the woman who had gotten inside his head. This conspiracy theory also doesn't account for the much more obvious approach that if Hillary Clinton really wanted to say something during the course of the debate when it wasn't her turn to speak, she could simply have interrupted her opponent rather than invoking secret hand signals and waiting to be called upon by the moderator  as she did in fact do multiple times ... while Donald Trump also did so, but three times as often. three times The American corporation has long been a target, especially in online debate, of criticism and condemnation  sometimes well-founded and justified, but at other times irrelevant and wrong-headed.  According to a theory advanced by Academy Award-nominated director Adam McKay, there is a direct link between the modern corporation and 1930's style fascism  one that Merriam-Webster even went so far as to censor from its definition of fascism following a corporate takeover in the 1980s.  In April 2018, McKay's words were turned into a widely-shared online meme published by the Facebook page "Americans Against Fascism": meme Benito Mussolini created the word "fascism." He defined it as "the merging of the state and the corporation." He also said a more accurate word would be "corporatism." This was the definition in Webster's up until 1987 when a corporation bought Webster's and changed it to exclude any mention of corporations."  Adam McKay.    The quote is taken word for word from a 2010 op-ed written by McKay for the Huffington Post, in which he offered a scathing criticism of large corporations and the recent Citizens United decision in the U.S. Supreme Court. (He accused four of the court's justices of treason.) op-ed McKay's account is riddled with errors. For one thing, the definition of fascism commonly attributed to Mussolini is "the merging of the state and corporate power," not "the corporation," as McKay presents it. Second, it's not clear that Mussolini  or even his ghostwriter, the philosopher Giovanni Gentile  ever actually gave this precise definition of fascism.  not clear Most importantly, though, the meme's central point revolves around a common misunderstanding of what "corporatism" was in Mussolini's fascism and a conflation with the modern capitalist "corporation," most likely borne out of the similarity between the words. Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of guilds or corporations ("corporazione") representing each major industry.  In his Dictionary of Political Thought, Roger Scruton describes corporatism in this way: this way The economy was divided into associations (called syndicates) of workers, employers and the professions; only one syndicate was allowed in each branch of industry, and all officials were either fascist politicians or else loyal to the fascist cause. According to law the syndicates were autonomous, but in fact they were run by the state. The corporations united the syndicates in a given industry, but made no pretence at autonomy from the state. This ultimate power and pervasive influence of the state (led by one man, of course) was famously summed up by Mussolini in a speech in 1927, in which he declared: "everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state."  declared In the Doctrine of Fascism, in 1932, Mussolini (with the help of Gentile) wrote: wrote Fascism desires the State to be strong and organic, based on broad foundations of popular support. The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporative, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organized in their respective associations, circulate within the State. In other words, corporatism in Mussolini's fascism was not a free-market capitalist system. Far from it. It did not allow for the kind of competition, innovation, market entry, and research and development characteristic of modern capitalism, and it was closely ruled in every way by the state with Mussolini at its head.  Anything that draws a direct link between what are now referred to as corporations (large, powerful private companies operating in a modern free-market capitalist system) and Mussolini's corporatism, is founded on a misunderstanding  most likely caused by the similarity between the words.  As for the claim that Webster's dictionary censored its definition of fascism when it was taken over by a public relations-sensitive corporation in 1987: Merriam-Webster has in fact been owned by Encyclopedia Brittanica Incorporated since 1964, and has operated as Merriam-Webster Incorporated since 1982; that claim is inaccurate. owned Bier, Daniel. "Fake Quote Files: Benito Mussolini on Fascism and Corporatism."
The Skeptical Libertarian. 7 February 2013. Berlet, Chip. "Mussolini on the Corporate State."
 Political Research Associates. January 2005. Scruton, Roger. "The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought."
 Palgrave Macmillan. 3rd Edition 2007. Mussolini, Benito; Gentile, Giovanni. "The Doctrine of Fascism."
 Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions/World Future Fund. 1935. On 13 January 2016, the official web site for the Powerball lottery announced that three winning tickets had been sold (one in California, one in Tennessee, and one in Florida) for the $1.6 billion jackpot. Shortly thereafter, rumors started circulating about the identity of the winners. Powerball Several people took advantage of the hype surrounding the record breaking Powerball lottery and posted fake tickets to their social media accounts. Most of these posts followed the familiar "Like Farming" formula, in which people are promised monetary rewards in exchange for liking, sharing, or commenting on a Facebook message. Like Farming The above-displayed Facebook post, for instance, instructed people to share the photo for a chance to win $10,000. Rickstarr Ferragamo, however, did not win the lottery. The biggest giveaway in Ferragamo's post is that his "winning ticket" was purchased in New York, and not in one of the states which sold an actual winning ticket:   Ferragamo wasn't the only hoaxster to post a ticket from a non-winning state. Twitter user @BerenabasG, who promised to give $2000 to anyone who retweeted his image, and @Nerdout, who just wanted people to "hit him up" about his recent windfall of cash, posted fake "winning" fake from Texas and Ohio:     Some internet hoaxsters, however, did manage to produce fake tickets from one of the states that did sell a winning ticket. The most convincing example of thiscame from skateboarder and filmmaker Erik Bragg:OMG I WON $1.5 BILLION!!!!! I'm posting this in case anyone tries to jack me this is proof! Look it up, I bought in chino hills where I grew up! #powerball #powerball   While Bragg's photo has garnered 100,000 likes on Instagram, the above-displayed image also features a fake lottery ticket. The biggest giveaway here is the "ABCDE" displayed onthe left side of the ticket, which indicates that the ticket should feature four additional groups of lotto numbers. These numbers were removed, however, when the image was altered to display the winning lotto numbers of 4, 8, 19, 27, 34, and 10. As of 15 January 2015, $1.6 billion Powerball lottery winners who have been officially identified are John and Lisa Robinson of Mumford, Tennessee. Robinson In January 2020, readers asked us about the accuracy of reports that authorities in Australia had announced their intention to cull (kill) around 10,000 camels due to the pressure the animals were placing on drinking water supplies.  For example, on Jan. 7, the Weird World Facebook page posted a widely shared meme that contained the following text: meme "More than 10,000 camels to be killed because they drink too much water. Feral camels in South Australia are set to be killed in a bid to stop them drinking too much water as droughts and fires ravage the country. More than 10,000 camels will be shot by professional shooters in helicopters starting Wednesday."   Also on Jan. 7, the London Evening Standard published a story with a headline similar to that contained in the meme: "Over 10,000 Australian Camels to Be Shot Because They Drink Too Much Water." The article reported that: story "Over 10,000 camels will be shot from helicopters to stop them drinking water in drought ravaged South Australia. Professional shooters will move in on Wednesday, after orders from Aboriginal leaders in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands (AYP). The culling, expected to take about five days, follows complaints from locals about animals looking for any available water source, including tanks and taps in properties." Similar stories, with similar headlines, were published by the Independent, the Daily Mail, and IndiaTimes.com. Those reports, and the Weird World meme, were broadly accurate, though the specific claim that "more than" 10,000 camels would be culled as part of the plan appears to have been contradicted by a local official who said the number would be between 5,000 and 10,000. They also failed to mention that a small number of wild horses would be targeted in the kill, as well. Independent Daily Mail IndiaTimes.com The APY local government authority, in the state of South Australia, announced the cull in a Jan. 6 news release that read, in part "There will be a feral animal kill across the APY lands. Feral animals, but specifically camels, are the primary target ... The cull (kill) will occur the week of 8th January, 2020, when the aerial operations will commence (expected to go over five days)." news release In a supplementary news release published the following day, APY officials explained the reasoning behind the cull: news release The region's first major cull of feral animals is in urgent response to threats posed to communities by an increase in the number of feral camels, and some feral horses, due to drought and extreme heat. Thousands of feral camels are emerging from an arid landscape and moving into communities looking for water, while doing significant damage to infrastructure and housing, and creating serious safety hazards.  Traditional owners, who have been widely consulted about the cull, have reported extremely large groups of camels and other feral animals in and around communities and in specific hot spots across the APY Lands. The APY Executive Board of Management held an urgent meeting on December 11 about the impact of feral animals on communities and pastoral operations, and approved a resolution for an aerial cull of camels and other feral animals across the APY Lands.  ... Richard King, APY's general manager, said traditional owners recognized the need to manage feral owners, despite a camel cull presenting a spiritual conflict for some indigenous groups, because of serious risks to community safety and damage to important economic, natural and cultural assets. "There is extreme pressure on remote Aboriginal communities in the APY Lands and their pastoral operations as the camels search for water," Mr. King said.  "The dire situation is compounded by dry conditions, animal welfare issues, threats to communities, scarce water supplies, health and environmental impacts, the destruction of country, loss of food supplies and endangerment of travellers on the Stuart Highway and across the APY Lands. Given ongoing dry conditions and the large camel congregations threatening all of the main APY communities and infrastructure, immediate camel control is needed." Separately, APY's General Manager Richard King told CBS News that the number of camels being targeted in the cull was between 5,000 and 10,000  a range that somewhat contradicts the claim, repeated in several news articles, that "more than" or "over" 10,000 camels were to be killed. If the number ends up being 10,000, those reports will transpire to be rather accurate. However, according to King, the number could be as low as half of that figure, a detail noted by none of the articles or the meme mentioned above. CBS News Hennessey, Ted. "Over 10,000 Australian Camels to Be Shot From Helicopters Because They Drink Too Much Water."
 The Evening Standard. 7 January 2020. Osborne, Samuel. "Australia: More Than 10,000 Camels to Be Shot Because They Drink Too Much Water."
 The Independent. 7 January 2020. Wilkie, Kelsey. "Shooters Will Cull More Than 10,000 Australian Camels From the Air Tomorrow..."
 The Daily Mail. 6 January 2020. Chauhan, Shreya. "Solution to Bushfires? Australia to Kill 10,000 Camels Because 'They Drink Too Much Water.'"
 IndiaTimes.com. 7 January 2020. Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Local Authority. "Media Statement -- There Will Be a Feral Animal Kill Across the APY Lands."
 6 January 2020. Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Local Authority. "Media Statement -- Feral Camel Control Operation Launches on APY Lands."
 7 January 2020. Lewis, Sophie. "Up to 10,000 Thirsty Camels Will Be Shot and Killed During Major Australian Drought."
 CBS News. 7 January 2020. Austin voters should doubt mayoral aspirant Mike Martinezs commitment to an affordable city, his opponent in a Dec. 16, 2014, runoff maintains. The narrator of a Steve Adler TV ad says that as an Austin City Council member, Mike Martinez has voted to raise taxes and utility rates while ending free bus service for seniors. That statement is made against this visual backdrop:  Source: TV ad from Steve Adler, Austin mayoral candidate,Mike Martinez Record on City Council, posted online Dec. 2, 2014. Martinez has been a council member since June 2006. So its no surprise he would have had a say on taxes and rates charged by the city-owned utilities, though unsaid here is that no single council member controls any such decisions; its been a seven-member body, including the mayor. Martinez also chairs theeight-person boardoverseeing Capital Metro, which provides local bus and limited rail service. So he could have voted on fares charged the elderly. Lets recap Martinezs actions on fares, city taxes and utility rates. Bus fares To our inquiries, Adlers campaign didnt provide comprehensive backup for his ad claim. But by email, spokesman Jim Wick pointed out a September 2010Austin American-Statesmannews storystating the Cap Metro board voted to require bus riders 65 and older to pay 50 cents a ride or $15 for a 31-day bus pass, starting in 2011. The story also said the board was deciding to charge seniors and people with disabilities to ride buses for the first time since 1989. For Capital Metro, spokeswoman Francine Pares told us by email Martinez has been a board member since June 2007 and chairman since January 2010. Pares also confirmed the boards decision to charge the 50-cent fares, though she said that change was adopted at the boards November 2010 gathering, which Martinez didnt attend, she said. According tominutes of the Nov. 10, 2010, board meeting, the six members who were there unanimously approved a resolution authorizing higher fares in part, the resolution said, to generate additional operating revenues while striving to meet growing demand for transportation options. Martinez and another board member were recorded as absent. Pares told us theboard in September 2013approved another increase in senior fares, to 60 cents, effective in 2015. Generally, she said, senior citizens receive 50 percent off regular fares. By phone, Martinez agreed he and fellow board members agreed to charge the fares for elderly residents. But that happened, he said, only after a state panel issued marching orders including a recommendation calling for Capital Metro to raise more money from fares. In a 2010 report, the staff of the Sunset Advisory Commission recommended the authority charge a bus fare of 50 cents for groups currently riding free. The commission had said 30 percent of Capital Metros passengers were riding for free and, it noted, the board had rejected proposed fares in 2008 and 2009. In its finalJuly 2011 reporton Capital Metro, the commission said: While fare increases are difficult, requiring only a portion of its ridership to bear the burden of these increases is not equitable or sustainable, especially in bad financial times. Martinez pointed out the sunset review occurred in keeping withlegislation passed into lawby the 2009 Legislature, which wanted Capital Metro to get its finances in order. City taxes On taxes, Wick of Adlers camp offered as backup news stories indicating thatin 2009, Martinez said taxpayers would have to pay a little more in taxes and fees through 2010 to maintain services andin 2010, the council acting to raise the citys property tax rate from 42.09 cents per $100 of property value to 45.71 cents; the city tax on a median value home was expected to increase $52 to $843. Wick followed up by emailing us achart made by Adlers campaignindicating city property taxes on a median-valued home going up on Martinezs watch. For a non-campaign analysis, we turned to the Travis Central Appraisal District; the chief appraiser, Marya Crigler, emailed us achartindicating city property taxes on a median-value homestead in 2007 were $715; in 2014, the comparable figure was $1,014. We converted the 2007 figure to 2014 dollars, using afederal inflation calculator. Upshot: Adjusted for inflation, city taxes on a median-value Austin homestead went up $278, or 34 percent, from 2007 through 2014, Martinezs council years. Over those years, according to the district, the median taxable value of an Austin homestead went from $177,257 to $228,032. Adjusting for inflation suggests there was a nearly $18,800, 9 percent, increase. Martinez agreed property owners paid more in taxes in his council tenure, results influenced by surging property values, he said. Still, he said, in five of eight years, council members voted to keep the citys property tax rate the same or to lower it. When the rate was raised, he said, the economy was in recession. For another fact check, the city provided this chart of tax rates, which shows the council raised the rate three times in Martinezs tenure, most recently for 2013,  but cut the rate four times, most recently for 2014. In September 2014, the council left the 2014 rate intact for 2015. Utility rates In 2011,we found Mostly Truea claim that Austin Energy, the city electric utility, was considering its first hike in rates since 1994. The base electric rate, covering staff, the electric system, power plants, vehicles and the like, hadnt changed since 1994. Meantime, residential customers were paying less for electricity than they once had, taking inflation into account. On June 7, 2012, the council unanimously voted to raise the base rate, theAmerican-Statesmanreported. The news story said: The complicated new rate structure will hit customers in different ways; generally speaking, the larger and more energy-hungry the home, the higher the percentage increase, effective October 2012. A typical home, which uses an average of 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month over the course of a year, will see its monthly bill rise by $8, to $113, according to Austin Energy calculations. A home that uses a lot of electricity would see its monthly bill increase by $59, to $332, the story said. How would Adler have voted? We asked Wick how Adler would have voted on the bus fares, tax and utility rate hikes we confirmed. Theres no simple answer, Wick said by email, but Adler favors free fares for senior citizens. Our ruling Mike Martinez has voted to raise taxes and utility rates while ending free bus service for seniors. Austin residents pay more in taxes and could be paying more for electricity thanks to council actions Martinez supported. He also backed a decision by the Capital Metro board to charge half fares to elderly bus riders who had previously not been charged, though Martinez hardly did this by himself; its worth clarifying, too, that Capital Metro was under pressure to improve its finances and that Martinez missed the vote creating the then-50-cent fare. We rate this statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.