Will Jesus Be Portrayed as Homosexual in an Upcoming Film?
This piece about an upcoming "gay Jesus film" is one of those examples that demonstrates a good petition never goes away, even when the issue it addresses has long since been settled (or was never really an issue in the first place).  The "gay Jesus film" petition first hit the fan in 1984, and by the end of 1985 more than a million Christians had written protest letters in an attempt to have the non-existent movie it referenced banned. Yes, non-existent. There never was such a film in production, but petitions likes these were circulated anyway: Modern People News has revealed plans for the filming of a movie based  on the SEX LIFE OF JESUS in which Jesus is portrayed as a swinging HOMOSEXUAL. This film will be shot in the U.S.A. this year unless the public outcry is great. Already a French Prostitute has been named to play the part of Mary Magdalene, with who Christ has a blatant affair. We CANNOT AFFORD to standby and DO NOTHING about this disgrace. We must not allow this perveted world to drag our Lord through the dirt. PLEASE HELP us to get this film banned from the U.S.A. as it has been in Europe.  Let us show how we feel. Detach and mail the form below to the address shown. Make a few copies and give them to your friends.  Only one name per copy. -------------------------------------------------------- Attorney General Scott,301 South Second Street,SpringfieldILLINOIS  62606 Dear Attorney General Scott, I would like to protest, in the strongest terms possible, the production, filming, and showing of any movie that supposedly depicts the sex life of JESUS CHRIST by MODERN PEOPLE NEWS, 11030 West Addison Street, Franklin Park, Illinois 60181. Such a movie would be blasphemous and would be an outrage and contrary to the truth.  We urge you to take proper action against this moral corruption. NAME:...................................................ADDRESS:.............................................CITY:.....................................................STATE:..............................CODE:.......... In the early incarnations of this call to arms, people were asked to fill out an attached form letter of protest and mail it to the Attorney General of Alabama.  The message often contained the following postscript: Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart recently reported that the above mentioned movie HAS BEEN COMPLETED!!! According to Brother Swaggart, the movie company has released word that the movie is scheduled to be shown in various locations around the country during the Christmas Season. So, the time is short to put a stop to it. We sincerely hope that all spiritually and morally minded people will band together and keep this UNGODLY type of filth out of Alabama. Many readers fell for it, including a radio station that happily passed the story along to their listeners and later had to retract it, according to folklorist Jan Brunvand: By later the same day the radio station [in Gadsen, Alabama] personnel had attempted to contact Modern People News and had been in touch with the Alabama Attorney General's office. Following these efforts at verification, a statement was read on the air saying that although the attorney general had received between two and three thousand letters over a period of several weeks concerning the supposed gay-Jesus movie, no evidence could be found that such a project ever existed. Modern People News, it was stated, seemed to have either gone out of business or changed their name. In January 1985 Ann Landers published a letter from the Attorney General's office of Illinois which tried to set the record straight. By then it was Modern Film News (not Modern People News) who supposedly had offices in Illinois, which is how that state got dragged into this issue).  People were exhorted to write to Attorney General William J. Scott . . . a man who had last held that office four years earlier: Dear Ann Landers:  The office of the Attorney General of the State of Illnois respectfully requests your assistance in combating an international chain letter that is distressing hundreds and thousands of Christians and those of other faiths as well. The chain letter is a plea to protest "in the strongest possible language" the making of a movie in which Jesus Christ could be depicted as a swinging homosexual. Both this office and the Associated Press have chased down every possible clue and cannot find a shred of truth in the story that such a film was ever in production. Modern Film News, which reported the film plans, has been out of business for more than two years. Moreover, 90 percent of the protest mail that has been overwhelming our staff is addressed to the former attorney general, William J. Scott, who has been out of office longer than four years. Despite our efforts to get the word to the public that the chain letter is a hoax, we continue to receive approximately 1,000 protests every week and at least a dozen phone inquiries each working day. The inquiries and protests have come from 41 states, Canada, Puerto Rico, New Zealand, Australia, Cambodia, Spain, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, India, the Philippines, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Portugal. We have concluded that the "Jesus movie" rumor originated in 1977 when a suburban Chicago publication, Modern People News, reported that certain interests in Europe were planning such a film and requested that readers express their opinion of the purported project. The result was the chain-letter protest, which, for some unknown reason, has been revived and is again sweeping the world. We are appealing to you, Ann Landers, to help us get the word out. The scope of your readership and impact on millions of newspaper readers around the world cannot be overestimated. The postage and phone calls, not to mention the valuable time of employees, run into a great deal of money that could be used for so many worthwhile purposes. Will you please help us?   Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, State of Illnois Dear Attorney General Hartigan: Hoaxes die hard and the zanier the hoax, the more difficult it is to convince people that it is not true.  If any of you, my readers, receive a copy of that wacky chain letter, take my word for the fact that there is not an iota of truth in it. And please tell friends that chain letters are illegal and should be tossed into the handiest wastebasket or fed to the nearest goat. The only such movie that seems to have been planned or made when this petition originally began circulating decades ago was the 1974 film Him, described briefly in Harry and Michael Medved's 1980 book, The Golden Turkey Awards, as an "everything you ever wanted to know about bad movies, but were afraid to ask" offering: This innovative film, designed exclusively for gay audiences, goes into excruciating detail concerning the erotic career of Jesus Christ. The ads for the film show the face of The Savior (with a cross glistening in one eye) while the headline inquires 'Are You Curious About HIS Sexual Life?'  Filmmaker Ed D. Louie satisfies that curiosity by showing us that the Son of Man was a voracious homosexual. (After all, why did he spend all that time hanging around with the Apostles?) The central character of the film is actually a young gay male in contemporary America whose sexual obsession with Jesus helps him to understand the "hidden meaning" of the Gospels. Contrary to common belief, the entry for Him in the Medveds' book was not a hoax concocted by them.  However, the minor, low-budget film was so obscure even after its release that it's hard to imagine it could have triggered a massive outpouring of petitions to halt its production. obscure  The non-existence of a "gay Jesus film" did not stem the ire of those who heard about it. Blasphemy  even the mere hint of it  is enough to mobilize good Christian soldiers everywhere. In 1988, Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ reaped massive publicity  and long lines at the box office  after fundamentalist Christians picketed theaters. The uproar wasn't over a gay Jesus, merely one who both questioned his fate and who had a dream about a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene. The film remains controversial to this day. We take our religious icons seriously, as Denis Lemon, editor of the British publication Gay News, found out in 1978. He lost his appeal against conviction for blasphemous libel involving poem he had published about a Roman centurion's homosexual love for Jesus. Though the nine month suspended sentence was set aside, the $900 fine against him and $1,900 fine against his magazine were upheld. A non-film version of a work similar to the one described in the petition was produced in 1998, when Terrance McNally's dramatic offering Corpus Christi began previews at the Manhattan Theater Club in New York. As described by the New York Times, the production "retells the Biblical story of a Jesus-like figure  from his birth in a Texas flea-bag hotel with people having profane, violent sex in a room next door, to his crucifixion as 'king of the queers' in a manner with the potential to offend many people."  Corpus Christi And it did. The Manhattan Theater Club's announcement of the play as part of its fall season was greeted with bomb threats promising to "burn the place to the ground" if the production opened. In May 1998 the theatre announced it was pulling "Corpus Christi" from its line-up. A week later it changed its mind, reinstating the play to its fall roster. Caught between cries of censorship on one side and outraged sensibilities on the other, the theatre had to make a choice.  Additional security measures were taken during the play's run to protect both the actors and the audience. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (self-described as the nation's largest Catholic civil rights group) planned an opening-night protest at the theatre involving busloads of people from as far away as Baltimore and Philadelphia as well as nuns, priests and lay people from Long Island. "Hopefully we'll send a message that this is basically unacceptable," said William A. Donohue, the league's president.  Corpus Christi continues to play various live theatres from time to time. It completed a four-week engagement at London's Pleasance Theatre in late 1999, and in March 2001 it became the subject of a brouhaha at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton when several state lawmakers threatened to cut funding for FAU because their theatre department staged the play.  In March 2010, Tarleton State University's decision to host to a student performance of Terrence McNally's Corpus Christi drew ire from some residents of Stephenville, Texas, home of that institute of higher learning.  Corpus Christi is undoubtedly the "play that went on for a while but never stopped" referred to in the current petition, but there are still no plans to make a movie out of it.  The 2010 release Corpus Christi: Playing with Redemption is often mistakenly cited as a film version of the play Corpus Christi, but it is not; it's a documentary about the controversy surrounding one particular troupe's production of the play,  not a movie version of the play itself.   Likewise, the 2006 DVD release entitled Corpus Christi is simply a documentary about the historical figure of Jesus, not a film version of the similarly titled play. documentary Corpus Christi Abrams, Joseph.  "Texas Town Cross Over Play's 'Gay' Christ."
  FOXNews.com.  25 March 2010. Applebomb, Peter.  "In Reversal, Theater Vows to Stage Play That Drew Threats."
  The New York Times.  29 May 1998  (p. A1). Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Mexican Pet.
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1986.   ISBN 0-393-30542-2   (pp. 175-177). Landers, Ann.  "Ann Landers."
  20 January 1985  [syndicated column]. Leo, John.  "Bigotry Still Has No Place in World of Art."
  The Detroit News.  9 June 1998  (p. A7). Medved, Harry and Michael Medved.  The Golden Turkey Awards.
  New York: Perigee Books, 1980.  (pp. 122-124). O'Haire, Patricia.  "Curtains for Play Depicting Christ As Gay."
  [New York] Daily News.  22 May 1998  (p. 7). Reel, Bill.  "Artistic Freedom Is Not a License to Commit or Aid Artistic Assault."
  Newsday.  2 June 1998  (p. A40). Associated Press.  "Florida University Under Fire for Play with Gay Christ Character."
  30 March 2001.  The New York Times.  "Lemon Loses Appeal."
  18 March 1978  (p. 7). renovated
Readers responded with bemusement and skepticism in June 2019 after an "Official 2020 Trump vs Democrat Poll" emerged online and on social media, appearing to pose questions framed in a heavily anti-Democrat way. For example, one survey question asked, "Who would you rather see fix our Nation's shattered immigration policies? President Trump // A MS-13 loving Democrat," while another somewhat tautological question asked: "Who would you trust to NOT raise your taxes? President Trump // A High Tax Democrat." Such bias in the questions, as well as some clear nods to Trump's go-to insults against his political opponents (the poll referenced "a Lyin' Democrat" and "a Low IQ Democrat"), prompted inquiries from Snopes readers who were uncertain whether they were reading a parody or hoax or an official Trump 2020 campaign poll. One reader asked, "Oh my gosh, is this really from the Trump campaign? Or some satire site?" while another wrote, "Is this for real? It sounds too crazy ..." The survey was indeed published by Trump's official re-election campaign committee, on that campaign's official website. An archived version can be read here. The site on which it appeared, donaldjtrump.com, is run by two formally registered, pro-Trump committees and the Republican National Committee (RNC). The website contains the following disclaimer, which makes clear the official nature of the June 2019 survey and all other content featured on the site: here "Paid for by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee authorized by and composed of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and the Republican National Committee." Committee Inc Committee The poll's true purpose may not have been to create a set of results that reflected in a misleadingly positive way on the president but rather to harvest contact information  respondents were required to enter their name, zip code and email address in order to submit their answers.  The full list of questions was as follows: The "Trump vs Democrat" poll bore similarities to another survey on the subject of "mainstream media accountability," which Trump's website published in February 2017, and that included heavily slanted questions such as. "Do you feel that the media is too eager to slur conservatives with baseless accusations of racism and sexism?"  accountability DonaldJTrump.com. "Official 2020 Trump vs Democrat Poll."
 June 2019. DonaldJTrump.com. "Mainstream Media Accountability Survey."
 February 2017. Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg has been the subject of a number of baseless rumors ever since the then-15-year-old stepped into the spotlight in 2018. We've previously examined false accusations that Thunberg was the "highest paid activist," that she was actually an actress, and that she was once filmed firing a machine gun.  highest paid activist actually an actress firing a machine gun In May 2020, after Thunberg was invited to participate in a CNN Town Hall, an old rumor concerning a quote ostensibly uttered by the activist about how China should stop using chopsticks was recirculated on social media: participate  Thunberg did not ask China to "give up" chopsticks.  This rumor has been circulating since at least January 2020. Although it has taken several forms, we've yet to encounter any social media posts pointing to when or where Thunberg allegedly made this request.  One of the earliest postings of this rumor, which was shared by the unverified Twitter account @Geoloong on Jan. 14, included a GIF of Thunberg speaking at the Climate Action Summit in 2019, but Thunberg made no mention of "chopsticks" during this speech. We searched other articles, interviews, and speeches delivered by Thunberg around this time and found no record of her asking China to ban chopsticks.  Geoloong no mention Other red flags in this post indicate the rumor is little more than an invented anecdote to mock the teenager. For starters, we found that this story was being shared almost exclusively by people expressing a negative view of Thunberg. If this was a genuine quote, you'd expect this story would have been shared (at least initially) by Thunberg's supporters.  Furthermore, the anecdote described in this post is simply ludicrous. Although it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for Thunberg, a teenager who became Time magazine's youngest Person of the Year for her work addressing climate change, to note the adverse environmental impact of disposable chopsticks, it would be quite extraordinary for the government of the most populous country in the world to issue a juvenile response telling someone not to "wipe their butt" because toilet paper is made from trees. Time magazine's youngest Person of the Year adverse environmental impact If China did issue such a statement, it would have surely been international news. Yet, just as we were unable to find a source for Thunberg's alleged comment, we were unable to find a credible source for China's alleged insult. In fact, the text on the above-displayed meme is a near-verbatim copy of the text published to the humor website Joe.ks.com. Joe.ks.com. Although Thunberg did not urge China to ban the use of chopsticks, China truly uses millions of trees every year to produce billions of pairs of disposable chopsticks. When concerns about the adverse impact disposable chopsticks had on the environment were raised in 2006, the Chinese government implemented a 5% tax on the utensil in an attempt to slow deforestation.  implemented a 5% tax BBC News reported: reported The Chinese government is introducing a 5% tax on disposable wooden chopsticks in a bid to preserve its forests. It produces about 45 billion pairs of chopsticks a year, consuming millions of trees and bamboo plants. The move came as China said it would raise some consumption taxes next month in a bid to help the environment and narrow the gap between rich and poor. Although this tax may have slowed deforestation, it certainly hasn't stopped it. In 2013, Bo Guangxin, the head of the China Jilin Forest Industry Group, estimated that China was using 20 million trees a year to produce nearly 80 billion pairs of disposable chopsticks. estimated NPR.  "Transcript: Greta Thunberg's Speech At The U.N. Climate Action Summit."
  23 September 2019. BBC.  "China Introduces Chopsticks Tax."
  22 March 2006. Lee, Don.  "Chinas Chopstick Tax Seems Dim to Some."
  Los Angeles Times.  24 March 2006. Nuwer, Rachel.  "Disposable Chopsticks Strip Asian Forests."
  The New York Times.  24 October 2011. The target in one of themostcompetitiveof Wisconsins nine Senaterecallracesis state Sen.Alberta Darling, R-River Hills, an architect of a 2011-2013 state budget that reduces aid to public schools by nearly $800 million.But one of the states major political players, the conservativeClub for Growth Wisconsin, is turning the tables. It claims Darlings challenger, state Rep.Sandy Pasch, D-Whitefish Bay, also backed a sizable school funding cut.The attack is part of aradioadthat began airing about a week before Pasch won the Democratic primary.Club for Growth, whichadvocatesfor limited government and minimal taxation, mostly branded Pasch as a tax-and-spender in the ad. But at one point, the female narrator says Pasch voted to to cut school aid by nearly $300 million.Club for Growth also makes the school aid claim in similar ads that have targeted two other Assembly Democrats who are challenging incumbent Republicans in recall races,accordingto theLa Crosse Tribune.They are Rep. Jennifer Shilling of La Crosse, running against Sen. Dan Kapanke of La Crosse; and Rep. Fred Clark of Baraboo, challenging Luther Olsen of Ripon. Those elections, and the Pasch-Darling contest, are on Aug. 9, 2011.When we asked for evidence to back the claim against Pasch, Club for Growth spokesman R. J. Johnson cited a May 2009Milwaukee Journal Sentinelarticle.It referred to the 2009-2011 budget submitted by then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, which proposed cutting state aid for schools by $290 million. That was before the Legislature, then controlled by Democrats, voted on the budget.But a month later, Pasch joined all but two Assembly Democrats inapprovingthe spending plan. The final budget cut general school aid by$294 million-- to $9.3 billion -- over two years, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.So, Club for Growth Wisconsin is correct in saying Pasch voted to cut school aid nearly $300 million. But is that whole story?In the same article cited by Club for Growth, Doyle said total spending on public schools would actually rise by about 5 percent because schools would get an additional $877 million in federal stimulus funds. That seemed to indicate that stimulus money would more than offset the state aid reduction. Gillian Morris, Paschs campaign spokeswoman, said that was also her understanding of what happened.But that was not the case.According to the fiscal bureau and the state Department of Public Instruction, the $294 million aid reduction took into account both the cut in state funds and the federal stimulus money that was added in.In other words, the stimulus money was not enough to offset the state funding cut. The net result for schools was a reduction in funding of $294 million.In sum, Club for Growth Wisconsin claimed that Pasch voted to cut nearly $300 million in aid to schools. The record shows the claim was on the mark.We rate the statement True. Claim:  President Obama has canceled July 4 celebrations at U.S. military bases to save money. OUTDATED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] Supposedly the president has cancelled 4th of July celebrations for the troops on military bases to save money.   Origins:  This item about President Obama's having cancelled Independence Day celebrations at U.S. military bases scheduled for 4 July 2013 began circulating a few days before that holiday.  It is true that some of the U.S. military bases which typically stage larger July 4 shows cut back or canceled their 4th of July celebrations that year, but those bases individually chose to do so due to budgetary constraints, not because President Obama directed all U.S. bases to skip celebrating Independence Day that year to "save money." The mandatory $85 billion budget cut imposed by sequestration as of March 2013  an outcome for which Congress and the President shared some measure of blame due to their inability to resolve deficit reduction issues  affected many federal departments, including the military.  Therefore, some U.S. military bases had to make the choice of scrapping annual fireworks shows (which can cost upwards of $100,000) or other Independence Day events in order to allocate funds to more vital areas:  sequestration The Fourth of July won't have a patriotic boom in the sky over some military bases because budget cuts and furloughed workers also mean furloughed fireworks. Independence Day celebrations have been canceled at the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base and at the Army's Fort Bragg, both in North Carolina. The annual July Fourth celebration also has been scrapped at the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Ga. The reason is money  namely the lack of it. The failure in Washington to follow up a 2011 budget pact with additional spending cuts meant $85 billion across-the-board cuts that began  in March. Budgets tightened, the military took a major hit and many federal workers absorbed pay cuts through forced furloughs. When the decision was made to forgo fireworks at Camp Lejeune, the commanding general, Brig. Gen. Thomas Gorry, said the cancellation would "ensure that we can mitigate the fiscal challenges we are currently facing." Last year's Independence Day at the base cost about $100,000, including $25,000 for the fireworks. The big issue is paying the overtime to personnel for security, transportation, logistics and safety. Base officials said they couldn't justify paying overtime when federal workers are losing pay while furloughed. Marines and their families at Lejeune will instead be able to participate in some free activities  golf, bowling, skeet shooting, archery and movies. Other bases that are canceling ceremonies to mark the nation's birthday:  Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina, where the annual Jammin' July 4th put on by the 20th Fighter Wing at Shaw and local city and county officials has been scrapped. The base plans a smaller "freedom bash" on July 3 with pool games, face painting and bouncy castles.   The Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii, which is scaling back by canceling the fireworks and instead hosting a daytime celebration featuring the Pacific Fleet Band and the Air Force Band of the Pacific.  New Jersey's Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. Last updated:  8 June 2015    Kerr, Jennifer C.   "A Fourth of July with No Fireworks for Some Military Bases."   The Washington Post.  1 July 2013. The language in a 1974 report that was co-authored by Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has been analyzed and criticized for more than four decades. The piece tackled sex bias in the United States penal code. As these critics have devolved from scholars, to senators, to pundits, to conspiracy-minded web sites, to the lowly meme maker, the accusations against Ginsburg have grown more crude and distorted. scholars senators pundits web sites In February 2018, for instance, we came across a meme featuring an image of the Supreme Court Justice and a quote ostensibly uttered by her about pedophilia being good for children:     This is not a genuine quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This claim is based upon a gross misinterpretation of another misinterpretation, which was itself based upon a simple misreading of a 1974 report entitled "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law" that was co-authored by Ginsburg, who at the time was a professor of law at the Columbia Law School. The other co-author was Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, a former director of the American Civil Liberties Union's women's rights project. The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law In 1974 Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau published a report examining how federal law frequently employed gendered language. This report was used as the basis for the "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," a report published in 1977, which included a passage explaining the purpose of the study: Sex Bias in the U.S. Code The Constitution, which provides the framework for the American legal system, was drafted using the generic term "man." While the United States Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, might have determined that "man" also means "woman" in terms of rights, duties, privileges, and obligations under the Constitution, the Court instead has chosen on numerous occasions to deny to women certain rights and privileges not denied to men. While explaining the "equality principle" and arguing that pronouns should be altered in the existing penal code so that both men and women were equally accountable for crimes against both boys and girls, Ginsburg quoted a proposed 1973 Senate bill as an example of legislation which used gender neutral language:   The 1937 Senate bill, S. 1400, in 1631, provides a definition of rape that in substance conforms to the equality principle: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old. It is the highlighted line that has been repeatedly misinterpreted and distorted over the ensuing decades. It appears that Ginsburg was first accused of wanting to lower the age of consent to 12 shortly before she was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1993. This accusation reemerged in 2005 after John Roberts was nominated. Both Senator Lindsey Graham and Fox News host Sean Hannity, for instance, used this line to argue that Ginsburg was "very left-wing" and immoral: accused Lindsey Graham Sean Hannity HANNITY: I guess where I am on this, if you look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I mean, she -- the Ginsburg rule, she doesn't have to answer specific questions, clearly pro-choice going in, thinks there may even be a constitutional right to polygamy, has a controversial view we should lower the age of consent to 12, supports legalized prostitution, very left-wing. GRAHAM: Well, there are all kind of hearts. There are bleeding hearts and there are hard hearts. And if I wanted to judge Justice Ginsburg on her heart, I might take a hard-hearted view of her and say she's a bleeding heart. She represents the ACLU. She wants the age of consent to be 12. She believes there's a constitutional right to prostitution. What kind of heart is that? However, Ginsburg never actually said that the age of consent should be lowered to 12. Ginsburg's report was about changing gendered language, not the age of consent, in our existing laws. In the quoted passage, she was not arguing for or against lowering the age of consent; rather, she was quoting a proposed Senate bill as an example of how appropriate gender-neutral pronouns should be used. Ginsburg wrote that she used this bill because it "conform(ed) to the equality principle," not because she agreed with the presented age of consent. Furthermore, Ginsburg mentioned another section of the penal code a few paragraphs earlier which referenced a different age of consent: 16. In both cases, Ginsburg's focus was on the gender of the victim, rather than the age, as her report was specifically concerned with gendered-language in U.S. law: 18 U.S.C.  1154 and 2032 make it a crime for a person to have carnal knowledge of a female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years. [...] The "statutory rape" offense defined in these sections follows the traditional pattern: the victim must be a female and the offender, a male. Protection of the girl's virtue as an asset to be traded by her family at marriage time can no longer survive as a justification for such provisions. The immaturity and vulnerability of young people of both sexes can be protected through appropriately drawn, sex-neutral proscriptions. The claim that Ginsburg said that "pedophilia was good for children" appears to be the result of a decades-long game of telephone that started with a misreading of a 1974 report. It started in 1993, after Ginsburg was nominated to the Supreme Court, when this report was quoted out of context as evidence that Ginsburg wanted to lower the age of consent to 12. As this errant argument was reiterated by pundits such as Sean Hannity it morphed from a single out of context quote to an alleged personal belief at the core of Ginsburg's political views. When the "Pizzagate" controversy exploded during the 2016 presidential election, this rumor underwent another devolution as conspiracy theorists claimed that Ginsburg once wrote that she wanted to legalize child rape. Pizzagate claimed In February 2018, this rumor took one more step away from reality when a meme featuring a quote ostensibly uttered by Ginsburg arguing that pedophilia was good for children went viral online. Bader Ginsburg, Ruth.  "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law."
  Report of Columbia Law School Equal Rights Advocacy Project,  1974  (p. 71) Noah, Timothy.  "Lindsey Graham's Smear."
  Slate.  16 September 2005. Kalven, Josh.  "Hannity Falsely Claimed Ginsburg Advocated Legalizing Prostitution, Lowering the Consent Age to 12."
  Media Matters.  1 November 2005. The Georgia General Assembly earlier this year pulled the plug on one of the nations most generous state tax credits for electric cars. At the same time, state lawmakers voted to impose a $200 annual registration fee on owners of some plug-in hybrids and all zero-emissions vehicles to make up for the gas taxes those motorists dont pay and to help fund a backlog of road projects. Both changes took effect July 1, and already, preliminary numbers show sales of the Nissan Leaf and other electric cars are plummeting, Don Francis, coordinator of the Clean Cities-Georgia Coalition, said in an interview published Oct. 28 at Watchdog.org. New electric car registrations in Georgia fell 89 percent from 1,338 in June, the last month that the tax credit was available, to 148 in August, Francis said. Sound surprising? Maybe not. True? PolitiFact decided to dig deeper. First, well provide some background. Georgia started providing a tax credit for electric car purchases in 1998. Initially, businesses and individuals were offered a tax credit up to $1,500 as incentive to buy alternative-fuel vehicles. Two years later, the credit was upped to $2,500 for all low-emission vehicles, and in 2001, it was doubled to $5,000 for zero-emission vehicles. By comparison, Louisiana and Maryland offer a credit up to $3,000, and Utah gives up to $1,500. All three states limit the tax credit to vehicle purchases. Georgias $5,000 credit meant huge savings for state residents who wanted to buy or even lease an electric car -- especially when coupled with a federal tax credit that could be as much as $7,500, depending on the capacity of the vehicles battery. Those who wanted to get rid of the tax credit said that the double tax credits were excessive and allowing Atlanta yuppies to lease electric cars, including the $30,000 Leaf, for as little as $100 a month. Supporters said the tax credit made Georgia one of the top states for electric cars, a positive step especially in metro Atlanta where air pollution from auto emissions has been a persistent problem. Statewide, electric car ownership has jumped dramatically just in the past couple of years.. According to the state Revenue Department, 1,743 electric cars were riding the roads of Georgia in 2012. By 2014, that number had soared to 15,729, or an increase of 802 percent, with two-thirds of them parking outside homes in metro Atlantas four biggest counties -- Fulton (4,288), Cobb (2,397), Gwinnett (2,087) and DeKalb (2,067). Proposals to eliminate the tax credit went nowhere in 2013 and 2014. But in this years legislative session, when raising $1 billion for transportation projects was a priority, budget analysts said cutting the tax credit for electric cars would bring in $66 million by 2016 and nearly $190 million by 2020. Supporters of the tax credit touted a private study that said, without the tax credit, Georgias economy would lose $252 million in the next 16 years. What the numbers say We began our fact check by contacting Francis, who opposed abolishing the state tax credit during this years General Assembly session. Francis shared with PolitiFact a spreadsheet that he developed based on motor vehicle data he obtained from a national automotive information company. The data showed a spike in Georgias electric car sales in the months between when lawmakers voted to kill the tax credit and when it officially expired July 1. Sales declined sharply in July, going from 1,338 in June to 776, and fell even more, to 149, in August, the last month for which data are available, Francis said. When you were selling an average of just over 1,000 (cars) a month and then it goes to 150 a month, you have to say: What changed? Francis said. Two things changed: The tax credit went away, and the $200 fee was added. We contacted officials at IHS Automotive, the company where Francis received the data used in the spreadsheet, and asked it to review the accuracy of his information. Michelle Culver, senior manager for corporate communications at IHS, said via an email that we did a spot check on this, and it is our data and accurate. We also decided to find out what the Georgia Department of Revenue, the agency in charge of vehicle registrations in the state, was seeing. William Gaston, the departments spokesman, sent us data on new car sales, rather than new car registrations. The reason, he said, was an owner could register a vehicle after July 1 but have purchased it before the deadline and thus qualify for the tax credit. Revenue Department numbers and Francis data brought us to the same conclusion -- sales of electric cars have done a nosedive. Specifically, Georgians purchased 5,434 zero-emissions vehicles -- or an average of 905 a month -- from Jan. 1 to June 30 of this year, when the $5,000 tax credit was available. Between July 1 and Sept. 30 -- when the state tax credit was no longer available -- 439 electric cars were sold, or about 149 per month. Our ruling: Don Francis, coordinator of the Clean Cities-Georgia Coalition, said electric car sales in Georgia have dropped dramatically since a $5,000 tax credit was eliminated and a $200 annual registration fee was imposed July 1. That statement is backed up by data available so far on new car registrations and new car sales. Keep in mind that car sales spiked as people rushed to buy before the credit expired July 1, and that makes the post-July 1 drop in sales look that much more shocking. Whether that trend holds remains to be seen. But everything we found so far indicates Francis is on the money. We therefore rate his statement as True. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio is pushing a proposal to cap the sizes of large banks. He appeared on ABC News'This Weekwith Jake Tapper to talk about that, as well as Democratic efforts to pass financial reform.Let me give you one statistic, if I could, Jake, Brown said. Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP, 17 percent of GDP. The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP. ... We've got to deal with risk to be sure, but we've got to deal with the size of these banks, because if one of these banks is in serious trouble, it will have such a ripple effect on the whole economy. So we simply can't let them get this big and have this kind of economic power over Main Street, over a small business in Canton, Ohio, or a worker -- a manufacturing plant in Dayton. I mean, we just can't let this happen.Some very smart people disagree on Brown's point that big banks resist regulation by reason of their sheer mass.People likeSimon Johnson, the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, urge measures that would limit the size of the biggest banks. Meanwhile, people likePaul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winningNew York Timescolumnist, say that breaking up the banks isn't necessary to avert the next meltdown if the proper regulations are put in place.We were interested in Brown's statistic though: That 15 years ago the top six banks' assets totaled 17 percent of GDP, while today that's 63 percent.Brown's staff said he got the numbers from13 Bankers:The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown, a book by Johnson and James Kwak, that describes the financial crisis and advocates steps for reform, including limits on the size of banks. Johnson also cited the number in an article in theNew Republic, co-written with Peter Boone, thatcriticizedPresident Barack Obama for not pushing rules that are tougher on big banks.The numbers are a fairly straightforward calculation. You take the bank's total assets, such as loans, cash and securities. (Remember that to banks, a loan is an asset, since they make money off loans.) Then you divide by GDP, which is gross domestic product, and is the total economic output for a country during a given year. Last year, the U.S. gross domestic product was $14.3 trillion.Johnson's book lists the six biggest banks of 2009 as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.The numbers in the book looked right to us, but we wanted to find an outside expert to confirm it. Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia agreed to run the numbers to see if they got the same thing.Sure enough, they found the same thing. The figures were off by a few percentage points because the researchers were able to use numbers from the fourth quarter of 2009 and compared them with the same quarter in 1994. Johnson's book cites numbers from the third quarter.Here's the information the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia sent us:Assets (in billions), Dec. 31, 2009Bank of America Corp. - 2,224.5JP Morgan Chase - 2,032.0Citigroup - 1,856.6Wells Fargo - 1,243.6Goldman Sachs - 849.3Morgan Stanley - 771.5Total 8,977.5Nominal GDP 14.453.8Percentage 62.1%Assets (in billions), Dec. 31, 1994Citicorp - 250.5BankAmerica Corp. - 215.5Chemical Banking Corp. - 171.4Nationsbank Corp. - 169.6JP Morgan - 154.9Chase Manhattan - 114.0Total 1,075.9Nominal GDP 7,248.2Percentage 14.8%A couple of experts we asked about these numbers noted that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were for years categorized as investment banks, and would not have been counted in the 1994 numbers. That changed in 2008 at the height of the financial crisis, when the two firms becamebank holding companiesso they could borrow from the Federal Reserve. The underlying point, though -- that there has been significant consolidation in the banking industry -- remains true, they said.Brown said, Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP ... The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP. Independent sources and experts confirm that, so we rate his statement True. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO Scientists are still uncertain whether a person who has contracted the COVID-19 coronavirus disease can catch it again. However, according to an item circulated via social media ("Corona is so bad, this guy died twice!"), one person has apparently not only caught, but actually died of COVID-19 twice: uncertain   According to the two separate news accounts pictured above, a retired Milwaukee police lieutenant and a University of Memphis professor, identified with identical photographs, seemingly both died in March 2020 from the COVID-19 coronavirus. However, the news reports of the COVID-19 victim seen above employed different headlines to refer to the same person, Lenard Wells, who was both a former police officer and an instructor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Memphis: same person Lenard Wells instructor [Wells] spent 27 years on the Milwaukee Police Department, where he worked tirelessly to bring racial equity to the ranks as president of the League of Martin, an association for African American officers. During his tenure, the League of Martin sued to make sure promotions and assignments were fair. "He wanted African American law enforcement officers to have the same rights and opportunities that were afforded to other officers," Assistant Milwaukee Police Chief Regina Howard said. After his police retirement, then-Gov. Jim Doyle appointed Wells chairman of the Wisconsin Parole Commission. In recent years, Wells taught criminal justice at the University of Memphis. Lenard retired from the Milwaukee Police Department after 27 years of service as a Lieutenant of Police. After retiring from the Milwaukee Police Department, he was appointed by Governor Jim Doye of Wisconsin to Chair the Wisconsin Parole Board. Forster, Victoria.  "Can You Get Sick with Coronavirus Twice? The Jury Is Still Out."
  Forbes.  8 April 2020. Luthern, Ashley.  "'A Law Enforcement Pioneer': Lenard Wells, Who Died of Coronavirus Complications, Leaves Lasting Legacy."
  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  23 March 2020. In February 2016, a meme about the lack of business acumen and experience exhibited by Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, began circulating online:  The criticisms offered in meme were a mixture of true, false, irrelevant, and misleading statements. To wit: Never owned a business Right off, this meme begins with a rather nebulous criticism. Although having owned a business is an experience many voters would like to see on the rsum of a potential chief executive, a literal application of that term isn't of much relevance. Technically, a person who once operated a roadside lemonade stand has "owned a business," while a person who has spent his career serving as the CEO of a public multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation has not -- even though everyone would agree the latter has vastly more business experience than the former. And certainly a number of highly-regarded U.S. presidents in the modern era (e.g., Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan) never owned their own businesses. Moreover, one might validly say that Sanders started and operated his own business (whether he "owned" it is somewhat arguable, as it was a non-profit), the American People's Historical Society, which was created in 1978 to produce educational film strips about the history of Vermont. The University of Vermont has archived several of the brochures produced by the American People's Historical Society, one of which includes a statement from Sanders outlining the purpose of his film strips: includes Director Bernard Sanders explained, "It is our belief that state and regional history has too long been neglected by the audio-visual industry, and we are happy to begin the process of rectifying that situation. We believe that students have the right to learn about the state and region in which they are living." While the financials of the American People's Historical Society are not available, Sanders wrote in his memoir Outsider in the House that the business was reasonably successful and "a lot of fun." A friend of Sanders' told Politico that the film strip business "wasn't just a way to make money ... He made filmstrips about people he admired and believed in. He just thought kids should know the truth of how things really were." Never invented anything Once again, this is a rather nebulous criticism. The concept of "inventing" something could range from simply thinking up a novel idea (but doing nothing more about it), to creating and building a device for personal use (but not marketing it), to actually obtaining a patent for a new product. Bernie Sanders is certainly no inventor and holds no patents, but it's hard to see how that fact is of any relevance, as the same is true of nearly every U.S. president. Thomas Jefferson might legitimately be considered an inventor for having conceptualized various devices (including a macaroni machine, a swivel chair, a spherical sundial, a moldboard plow, and a cipher wheel), although he held no patents because he believed them to be a form of monopoly. Abraham Lincoln was the only U.S. president who ever held a patent, having been issued Patent #6,469 for "A Device for Buoying Vessels Over Shoals" on 22 May 1849. Beyond that, "inventing" has historically had nothing to do with the qualifications or success of candidates for the White House. Never had a 9 to 5 job This criticism is too vaguely worded to allow for much cogent analysis. What does holding a "9 to 5 job" mean? That one literally works from 9 AM to 5 PM (and not some other period of the day)? That one holds full-time employment? That one is paid on an hourly basis? That one toils at what is commonly referred to as a "blue collar" job? That one works for someone else rather than being self-employed? If we assume the most seemingly relevant application of the term  that it refers to holding steady, full-time employment  then one might fairly say it applies to Bernie Sanders. After receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Chicago in 1964, Sanders primarily worked a series of odd jobs while attempting to get his political career off the ground, and a Politico article observed that he "didn't collect his first steady paycheck until he was an elected official pushing 40 years old." However, that same article did list a variety of jobs Sanders held (even if they weren't steady or didn't provide a livable wage) before he finally reached public office upon being elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, at age 39  working as an aide at a psychiatric hospital, as a Head Start preschool teacher, as a carpenter, and as a freelance writer for local publications: article Sanders rented a small brick duplex at 295 1/2 Maple Street that was filled with not much furniture and not much food in the fridge but stacks of checked-out library books and scribbled-on legal pads. "Pretty sparse," Gene Bergman, an old friend, said about the apartment. "Stark and dark," said Darcy Troville, a fellow Liberty Unionite who lived around the corner and shared with Sanders homemade jellies and jams. "The electricity was turned off a lot," Barnett said. "I remember him running an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn't pay his bills." He worked some as a carpenter, although "he was a shitty carpenter," [Liberty Union party member John] Bloch told me. "His carpentry," [Liberty Union member Danny] Morrisseau said, "was not going to support him, and didn't." He worked as a freelance writer, putting intermittent pieces in the low-budget Vermont Freeman, a Burlington alternative weekly called the Vanguard Press and a glossy, state-supported magazine called Vermont Life. His writing wasn't a living. The Vanguard paid as little as the rest. "It would've been not more than 50 bucks," said Greg Guma, a former editor. Vermont Life? "Our rate was 10 cents a word," said Brian Vachon, a former editor. "He was always poor," Sandy Baird, another old friend, told me in Burlington. "Virtually unemployed," said Nelson, the political science professor at the University of Vermont. "Just one step above hand to mouth," said Terry Bouricius, who was involved with Liberty Union, served at times as a de facto campaign manager for Sanders and at one point crashed for a couple months on his couch. Liberty Union "people found it difficult to support themselves while engaging in full-time political work," Michael Parenti, one of those people, wrote in the Massachusetts Review in the summer of 1975. "Some held jobs that allowed free time for campaign activities, while others lived off unemployment insurance." "His work was to be a politician," Guma said. "He put everything into what he was doing." We would also note by that by the standard used here, holding elective office (as Sanders has done for most of the last 35 years as a mayor, a U.S. representative, and a U.S. senator) is as much a "9 to 5" job as any other. Never proposed a bill that has passed This statement is not literally true, as during his tenure in Congress Sanders has sponsored three bills that were enacted, two of which were rather slight matters involving the naming of USPS facilities, and one of which was the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 (which provided "for an increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans"). Although that might seem like slight achievement for someone who has spent 25 years as both a U.S. representative and a U.S. senator, we would note that only a scant handful of bills submitted in Congress (about 4 to 6 percent) are ever brought to a vote, and even fewer (about 2 to 4 percent) end up being enacted. We would also note that sponsoring original legislation is but one small part of Congress members' duties: they also co-sponsor legislation submitted by colleagues (which Sanders has done for more than 200 successful bills), muster support (or opposition) among colleagues and the public for proposed legislation, review and vote on proposed bills, serve on various committees (Sanders holds six Senate committee appointments), meet with constituents, participate in oversight and investigation of governmental affairs, etc., as detailed in "The Many Roles of a Member of Congress": handful committee detailed First and foremost, the Member is a decision-maker. Members are faced with hundreds of decisions in both recorded and unrecorded votes on matters major and minor. Many decisions must be made quickly. Each decision, whether spontaneous or studied, balances the conflicting perspectives received from private citizens, public officials, party leaders. Decisions are often second-guessed by constituents, campaign opponents, colleagues, lobbyists, and media critics. Meetings are continual, in committee rooms, in private offices, in corridors, and in gatherings on the floor. Daily, sacks of mail are delivered. Faxes flow in a steady stream. Electronic mail jams congressional computers. Correspondence must be written and press releases issued. Highly visible issues are debated on the House or Senate floor, fully televised, and the absence or presence of a Member is duly noted. Scandals require investigation. Programs require oversight. Requests for information, both basic and complex, are received daily. Journalists seek comment. Constituents seek assistance obtaining federal grants, government jobs, and help in overcoming bureaucratic obstacles. Over time, these daily tasks and the always-changing expectations of the electorate have come together to establish a multi-faceted job. Lived off welfare before elected to public office As noted above, various acquaintances who knew Sanders in the years before he achieved public office have reported that he was "always poor," and he likely received public assistance at some point during that time, although what form of (and how much) assistance he received is difficult to determine at this remove. A contemporaneous newspaper account from the Bennington Banner reported that in 1974, when Sanders ran for the U.S. Senate on the Liberty Union Party ticket, he was collecting unemployment benefits: Sanders, 32, cares little what 'image' he conveys  and that's part of his image of being a bit rumpled and unshorn. He's on unemployment compensation right now, having worked for the Bread & Law Task Force, as a free-lance writer, and as a carpenter in the Burlington area. But the thing he likes best, and excels at, is 'talking the issues,' and he doesn't mind repeating himself sometimes." 74 year old  personal net worth of $300,000 As 247 Wall St. reported, determining the precise net worth of candidates is difficult for a number of reasons: net worth [R]eporting exact values is not required. Instead, candidates may disclose their assets and income in a range. Further, candidates do not necessarily report all their assets. For instance, candidates do not need to disclose their personal real estate and property values. Jeb Bush opted to omit assets generated by several holding companies, for example. In addition, while some candidates choose to include their spouses in their disclosures, some do not. Carly Fiorinas net worth of $59 million, for example, includes that of her husband, Frank. Hillary Clinton's reported net worth, on the other hand, does not include assets jointly owned by her and former president Bill Clinton, who is worth by some estimates more than $50 million. 247 Wall St. attempted to determine each presidential candidate's net worth in an article published on 24 August 2015. They estimated that Sanders was one of the "poorest presidential candidates" running for office in 2016, with a likely net worth somewhere around $330,000: estimated Bernie Sanders> Net worth: $194,026-$741,030 In 2013, Bernie Sanders had an average estimated net worth of $330,507, well below other prospective presidential nominees and among the lowest compared with other members of Congress. As of late 2019, Open Secrets, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics, estimated Sanders' net worth at between $729,000 and $1.8 million, making him neither the richest nor the poorest presidential hopeful in the 2020 field. estimated In any case, the meme's characterization of Sanders as a "loser" based on his net worth evinces a rather skewed perspective. Although many people view financial rewards as a tangible measure of one's success, it is far from the only factor by which accomplishment can be measured. (In fact, highly-regarded President Harry S. Truman had virtually no net worth even after leaving the White House in 1953 and afterwards was largely dependent upon Congress' finally establishing a pension for former presidents.) pension Bernie Sanders might equally be considered a "winner" for persevering at his goal of achieving a political career long after others might have given up, and for succeeding at that effort despite prolonged financial hardship. Unlike many others, Sanders might also be lauded for maintaining a rather plain life and not having enriched himself in public service (especially since candidates at the other end of the financial spectrum are frequently criticized for being "out of touch with the common man"). As 247 Wall St. wrote of Sanders: The Vermont senator, who is the longest-serving independent in U.S. history, is a self-identified socialist. He is seeking the Democratic nomination and is the most popular Democratic candidate after Hillary Clinton. In keeping with Sanders' stated intention of starting a grassroots movement, more than 90% of his campaign contributions have come from individual donors. Sanders' campaign speeches have drawn record numbers of attendants. Most recently, 19,000 people watched Sanders speak at an NBA arena in Portland, Oregon, the largest political event compared with all other candidates so far this election season. All in all, that sounds like quite an impressive career achievement for anyone  regardless of net worth. Kruse, Michael.  "Bernie Sanders Has a Secret."
  Politico.  9 July 2015. Frohlich, Thomas C. et al.  "The Net Worth of Each Presidential Candidate."
  24/7 Wall St.  24 August 2015. Delaney, Arthur.  "Bernie Sanders Ran for Office While on Unemployment."
  The Huffington Post.  29 May 2015. Murphy, Tim.  "How Bernie Sanders Learned to Be a Real Politician."
  Mother Jones.  26 May 2015. OpenSecrets.org.  "Net Worth of 2020 Presidential Candidates."
 Accessed 18 October 2019. This years primary elections are getting so nasty that Lithonia Congressman Hank Johnson has taken to calling them slimary elections.In an op-ed on liberal website The Huffington Post, Johnson, a Democrat, blamed the viciousness on super PACs, political fundraising organizations that can raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations and unions alike.In the last two years, super PACs raised more than $180 million -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people and roughly 20 percent from corporations, Johnson wrote in the Feb. 24 article.Those are some big bucks, wealthy people, and generous businesses. We wondered if Johnson got his numbers right.Super PACs became legal after a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision. They are an object of ire for those who think they can be used to buy elections and help donors obscure their identities.A Johnson spokesman said the congressman got his data from articles in Politico and Roll Call. The stories, which ran Feb. 8, lay out the findings of Auctioning Democracy: The Rise of Super PACs & the 2012 Election.The report was authored by left-leaning policy and advocacy group Demos and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, or U.S. PIRG, a consumer advocacy group. It argued that super PACs skew American politics by giving outsize influence to wealthy donors who hold views that do not represent those held by the broader public.Johnsons account matched both news accounts descriptions of the Auctioning Democracy report. One of these descriptions could have been more precise, but they were not unreasonable.From the advent of super PACs to the end of 2011, donors have contributed a total of $181 million in what are called itemized individual contributions to super PACs, the report states. These are contributions from donors who give more than $200. Super PACs must report donor names once their contributions pass this threshold.The report did not tally contributions by small donors, said Adam Lioz, a Demos official and an author of the report.Demos and U.S. PIRG found that 196 people donated $100,000 or more to super PACs, which is just shy of 200 individuals. Calling them super-rich is polarizing, but its reasonable to assume that people who can afford to make a $100,000 donation have unusually high incomes.We used the reports findings to calculate that donations of the super-rich amounted to about 43 percent of total contributions. This is some 7 percentage points lower than the roughly half figure that Johnson used.For-profit businesses contributed 17 percent of itemized donations, the report states. This is just shy of the 20 percent Johnson cited.We checked with the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for more transparency in government. It is the source of much of the data used in the report, so we wanted to get the organizations take on the numbers. A spokesman said they found no problems with the conclusions of Auctioning Democracy.But for the sake of due diligence, we compared the reports numbers to data published by the Center for Responsive Politics, which keeps a rolling tally of super PAC contributions on its websiteOpenSecrets.org.The data from the CRP and the Auctioning Democracy report are not easy to compare. They track contributions over different time periods, and the CRP tallies a broader pool of contributions.However, we felt an analysis of the CRP data would give us a rough sense of whether Demos and U.S. PIRG overstated their results to make their case.First, we looked at the CRPs count of total super PAC donations.From 2010 to late February, about $215 million had been donated to super PACs, according to the CRP data. This is about $35 million -- or 20 percent -- more than the data published in Auctioning Democracy, but this difference did not signal major flaws.The CRPs number should be significantly higher than the figures in Auctioning Democracy. The report excludes donations of $200 or less as well as contributions for the 2012 calendar year. The CRP includes them.Next, we looked at whether roughly half of super PAC donations came from 200 super-rich people. The CRP publishes a list of the top 100 super PAC donors for the 2012 election cycle on its website. We found they donated about $74 million so far, or 57 percent of the cycles $130 million total.The count in Auctioning Democracy was lower, which suggests that Demos and U.S. PIRG did not overstate the significance of donations from the super-rich.We had difficulty using the CRPs data to check corporate or business donations. The CRPs Web page lists too few organizations, and does not distinguish between for-profit businesses and groups such as labor unions or advocacy organizations.Our rulingJohnson wrote that [i]n the last two years, super PACs raised more than $180 million -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people and roughly 20 percent from corporations.On balance, Johnsons claim reflects the findings of a report by two advocacy groups that are critical of super PACs. The statistics Johnson uses also make sense in light of data published by a separate group.We give Johnson a True.