Mistaken Dog
Claim:  A badly behaved dog wreaks havoc while two fellows stand by silently, each thinking it's the other guy's pooch. LEGEND Examples:  [Brunvand, 1989] A woman is invited to call at the home of a woman who is wealthier than she is. From the moment she is invited, the caller is unsure about how to behave  how to sit, how to take tea, etc. And matters are made worse when the time of the visit arrives. A large, lively, dirty, beast of a dog is sitting in the front yard, and when the hostess welcomes the caller into the house, the dog follows her inside. While the caller tries to respect the social amenities, that darn dog does not. It tracks mud about the room, sniffs the cookies, and paws the furniture. The caller makes small talk, but the conversation becomes strained. Still, both parties keep a stiff upper lip, observing proper etiquette. Finally, the visit comes to an end. As the caller rises to leave, the hostess, with one eye on the wreckage, remarks icily, "And don't forget to take your dog!" "My dog?" the caller says. "I thought it was yours!"  [Regis, 1987] In January 1946 Bigelow came down to Princeton for an interview with Von Neumann. He was a couple of hours late . . . Julian Bigelow got out of the car and walked up to the house.  "Von Neumann lived in this elegant lodge house on Westcott Road in Princeton," Bigelow says. "As I parked my car and walked in, there was this very large Great Dane dog bouncing around on the front lawn. I knocked on the door and Von Neumann, who was a small, quiet, modest kind of a man came to the door and bowed to me and said, 'Bigelow, won't you come in,' and so forth, and this dog brushed between our legs and went into the living room. He proceeded to lie down on the rug in front of everybody, and we had the entire interview  whether I would come, what I knew, what the job was going to be like  and this lasted maybe forty minutes, with the dog wandering all around the house. Towards the end of it, von Neumann asked me if I always traveled with the dog. But of course it wasn't my dog, and it wasn't his either, but von Neumann  being a diplomatic, middle European type person  he kindly avoided mentioning it until the end."  [Mahoney, 1983] In passing I must make mention of a funny situation in which I became involved while visiting Field Marshal Lord Alexander and his wife at their home near London.  I motored there to have luncheon with them, and as I emerged from my car, a huge dog appeared in the driveway.  Dogs always made a dead set for me, and I wasn't worried when it began jumping around and wagging its tail.  But I did feel some concern when it followed me to the doorway and walked in as if it owned the house. A family pet, I felt sure, as it settled down to a corner of the living room as Lord and Lady Alexander greeted me warmly.  At luncheon the dog settled down at my feet and the begging for food began.  Lady Alexander's attention became riveted upon me: "Mr. Mahoney," she said charmingly, "I wish you would send your dog outside." And not until then did it dawn upon me that they thought the stray dog was mine! Origins:  Though this story has often been told as an actual event in an important person's life, its first appearance came in a 1924 Lucy Maud Montgomery book, Emily Climbs. In Chapter   12, Emily's call on socially-superior Miss Janet Royal is interrupted by the antics of a very large muddy dog that follows her into the elegant parlor, where it proceeds to act up.  to the legend, only after the beast has made a shambles of things and Emily is about to leave does the subject of the dog's ownership arise, each girl thinking up until that time the horrid thing belonged to the other. From those early beginnings, the "Not my dog" anecdote has gone on to reach a succession of new audiences, as new storytellers emerge and claim it as their own. Burt Reynolds is rumored to have told this story (starring himself as the embarrassed visitor) to Johnny Carson on The Tonight Show in the 1980s. A common element in this story is unequal status between visitor and visited. The one who comes calling feels inferior for reasons relating to social standing, comparative wealth, or the celebrated householder's achievements. Whatever the cause, he comes hat in hand, filled with a determination to make a good impression  a certain recipe for social disaster! The story is one of horrific embarrassment; the faux pas being perceived as being that much more flamboyant because it plays out before someone looked up to. That matters are straightened out before the visit ends by the caller blurting out, "My dog? I thought he was yours!" doesn't change the  momentary flash of mortification experienced or the knowledge that the sought-after host had sat there for quite a while thinking decidedly evil thoughts about his guest. The story is also a poke at the strictures of etiquette. Neither host nor guest feels it would be proper to comment negatively on the dog's behavior, so both endure the worsening state of affairs in stoic silence. The legend underscores common misperceptions about etiquette, that the rules of polite behavior are often impractical and adherence to them results in ridiculous situations a more direct approach would head off at the pass. Those who resent the genteelly-voiced demands of Miss Manners and long for less structured, more direct forms of social interaction get to savor a moment of self-congratulation through this story because it proves right what they've been saying all along. As old as this story is (1924, remember?) it continues to pop up, and even at times changes in dramatic ways. We picked up the following non-canine version of the tale during our Internet travels, again proving that no story can't stand a little improving: [Collected on the Internet, 2002] The story goes along the lines of a young Indo-asian couple who after a non-arranged marriage, decide to get a house together. A few weeks after they move in, the husband returns from work to find an older woman in the living room of the house. Knowing they have broken with tradition by having a non-arranged marriage, the husband greets his mother-in-law, only to receive a hard silent stare. She is evidently not happy at their recent union. That evening the old woman joins the couple at the dinner table, and continues to join them for every meal for the next month, never uttering a word. Eventually the once-close couple become hostile to one another, unhappy that 'Mother' has been allowed to move in with them. They stop talking and avoid one another. A few days later the situation escalates into an argument about the old woman. The creepy truth is revealed as the wife exclaims "My mother? I thought she was yours!" Barbara "vinegar mother" Mikkelson Last updated:  2 August 2011 Curses! Broiled Again!   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good To Be .  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 55-57). Too Good To Be    Mahoney, Patrick.  Barbed Wit & Malicious Humor.  New York: Citadel Press, 1956.  (p. 100).    Regis, Edward.  Who Got Einstein's Office?   Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1987  (p. 110).   Healey, Phil and Rick Glanvill.  Now! That's What I Call Urban Myths.  London: Virgin Books, 1996.  ISBN 0-86369-969-3  (pp. 105-106). Now! That's What I Call Urban Myths   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 39). The Big Book of Urban Legends
Claim:  Incentives received by consumers through the "Cash for Clunkers" program are subject to taxes.  Origins:   People are often surprised to find out that zero-cost items (e.g., prize winnings, free  goods offered as marketing promotions, items given as gifts) may not require any immediate outlay of money, but they frequently do later  in the form of taxes on the value of the goods and services received.   gifts One group recently caught by such a surprise was some consumers who took advantage of the federal government's CARS program (commonly known as "Cash for Clunkers"), which offered incentives of up to $4,500 to those who traded in qualifying "clunkers" and purchased new vehicles.   Although incentives received through participation in the CARS program are not taxable at the federal level, residents of some states may have to pay some form of state and/or local taxes (such as excise or sales taxes) on the value of the incentives.   Residents of Maryland, for example: As it turns out, each state determines whether to tax the clunker money. Pennsylvania doesn't, for example, but Maryland applies its 6 percent excise tax to the incentive. "We treat that $4,500 as a down payment toward [the] car. We still tax the total value of the car," says Caryn Coyle, a spokeswoman with the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration,  which collects the excise tax. And you can't, say, travel up to Pennsylvania to buy your new car there to avoid the Maryland excise tax. States have pacts with one another to collect taxes owed on car purchases by residents in other states, Coyle says. So a Pennsylvania dealer would have charged the Maryland excise tax anyway if [the car had been bought there]. If it's any consolation, there's no federal tax on the clunker incentive and you may be able to deduct on your federal tax return any state or local taxes paid on a new vehicle purchased this year from Feb. 17 through Dec. 31. And Nebraska: Nebraskans who take advantage of the government's Cash for Clunkers rebate might be surprised to learn those rebates of $3,500 or $4,500 don't reduce the amount of sales tax a car buyer must pay. State Tax Commissioner Doug Ewald says he's received a number of complaints since the program started, but officials anticipated the issue and made sure that dealers knew about it beforehand. Nebraska law treats the government's clunker rebates as a "third-party rebate," so they don't reduce the taxable value of the new car like a trade-in or manufacturer's rebate does. So someone buying a $25,000 vehicle with the $4,500 clunker rebate would still have to pay taxes on $25,000. And South Dakota as well: [M]any of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable. "They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out," [Minnehaha County Treasurer Pam] Nelson said. In North Carolina, however, the CARS incentives are subject to neither the state's highway use tax nor its income tax: According to the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, "the highway use tax should be calculated on the final sales price of the purchased vehicle less the amount allowed for the trade in." As an example, if you bought a car with a $20,000 price tag and the dealership gave you $3,000 for your trade-in, then you got the $4,500 Cash For Clunkers incentive, you paid $12,500 for the car. That's the amount you've paid plus 3% as the standard Highway Use Tax. Hence, you are not paying taxes on the $4,500. The North Carolina Department of Revenue says because the incentive is taken as a coupon at the dealership, you will not have to file it as income on your taxes. Consumers who took advantage of the CARS program should check with their state tax departments for information about whether such incentives are taxable in their home states. Last updated:  29 August 2009    Neisteadt, Shawn.  "Some Surprised by 'Clunker' Tax.'"   KELO-TV [Sioux Falls, SD].  24 August 2009.    Zash, Chelsi.  "Can the Cash for Clunkers Incentive Be Taxed?"   WFMY-TV [Greensboro, NC].  24 August 2009.    Associated Press.  "Neb. Clunker Buyers Still Pay Full Sales Tax."    Newsday.  21 August 2009.    WJRH-TV [Tulsa, OK].  "Is Your Tax for Clunkers Taxable?"    21 August 2009. The general election for one of Wisconsins U.S. Senate seats may still be months away, but Democrats have been gearing up to defeat Ron Johnson for much longer. Johnson, an Oshkosh Republican and Wisconsins senior senator, has held the seat since 2011. Earlier this year, he announced hedbreak with his initial pledge to only serve two termsand run for a third. In a news release, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin honed in on an action Johnson took at the beginning of his second term: He withheld his yes vote on the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act unless the bill included a tax break for companies calledpass-throughs those that pass all their income on to the owners or investors. Companies structured this way (often small, family owned businesses) are not subject to corporate income tax. And it worked. Once that tax break was added, Johnson voted yes and the bill passed. But Wisconsin Democrats argue it wasnt those small, family-owned businesses that reaped the bulk of the benefits. Multiple independent studies found that the tax carve out Johnson spearheaded overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest, over small businesses, theApril 29, 2022, releasesaid. Is that correct? Lets break it down. When asked to back up the claim, Philip Shulman, Senate communications advisor for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, sent a list of analyses of the tax law from news outlets and research organizations. Well start with anApril 2021 studyfrom Treasury economists for the National Bureau of Economic Research. The study found that the top 1% of Americans by income have received nearly 60% of the tax savings created by the provision. Most of that amount went to the top 0.1%. Thats because even though there are many American small businesses that also function as pass-throughs, most pass-through profits flow to the wealthy owners of a small group of large companies, according to an Aug. 11, 2021,ProPublica analysisof the tax law. That small group of the ultrawealthy  made up of Republicans like Dick and Liz Uihlein, whose shipping supply company Uline is headquartered in Wisconsin, and Democrats like former presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg  received close to $25 billion in total tax savings in 2018 as a result of the pass-through tax break benefits, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research study. The rest of the top 10% of Americans by income received a little over $12 billion in total, and everyone else in the country, about $6 billion. An April 23, 2018,congressional reportforecast the same breakdown. In 2018, the Joint Committee on Taxationestimatedthat roughly 53% of the pass-through deduction benefit, or about $21 billion, would go to a few hundred thousand Americans earning $500,000 or more a year. For comparison, the average salary for an American small business owner is about $61,000 per year,according to the salary comparison company Payscale. By 2024, just under $4 billion of the pass-through deduction benefit would go to Americans making less than $100,000 per year, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation Report. More than $31 billion would go to those making over a million dollars a year. To be sure, any broad-based tax cut willmostly benefit the wealthybecause they already pay a large share of income taxes, something Johnson has acknowledged. In an April 28, 2022, interview withCBS 58-TV, Johnson said his efforts were for the many, not the few becausemost businessesfunction as pass-throughs, and that when you start talking about taxation, if you cut taxes for everybody  people who make more money get more dollars cut, but thats our tax system. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin claimed that the pass-through tax break Johnson advocated for in 2017 overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest, over small businesses. Multiple analyses show Americas millionaires and billionaires are receiving large chunks of those benefits. We rate their claim True. Claim:  The federal government is preventing Volkswagen's XL1 model car from being sold in the U.S. because the vehicle is too fuel-efficient.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] Volkswagen's New 300 MPG Car Not Allowed In America Because It Is Too Efficient Would like to know of the article is valid. Origins:  For many years conspiracy rumors have circulated positing that a collusion between Big Oil and the U.S. government has prevented the American public from having the opportunity to purchase fully developed, market-ready automobiles capable of obtaining fuel efficiencies of 200-300 MPG.  Such rumors have taken the form of everything from mysterious forces stealing cars equipped with miracle carburetors to keep that technology's existence a secret, to the federal government's enacting regulations intended for the sole purpose of keeping high-mileage vehicles out of the U.S. market in order to protect the interests (and profits) of American oil companies. miracle carburetors high-mileage April 2014 saw the emergence of yet another entry in this vein, courtesy of Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist (the same "journalist" who promulgated the ridiculous story about a passenger on missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 who supposedly hid his cell phone in his rectum and used it to post a picture to the Internet after the flight was hijacked), positing that Volkswagen has a terrific 300 MPG vehicle that only costs $60,000 all ready to go, but it can't be sold (or even seen) in America because politicians in the pay of oil companies are conspiring to keep it unknown and unsellable in the U.S.: Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist ridiculous You won't find the 300 MPG Volkswagen XL1 in an American showroom, in fact it has even been denied a tour of America because it is too efficient for the American public to be made widely aware of, and oil profits are too high in America with the status quo in place. No tour has been allowed for this car because the myth that 50 mpg is virtually impossible to obtain from even a stripped down econobox is too profitable to let go of, and when it comes to corporate oil profits, ignorance is bliss. The answer is obvious. Simply for the sake of raking in huge profits from $4 a gallon gas, getting guzzled at 10X the rate it should be, the corporations have via campaign contributions and other types of pay outs succeeded in getting the FED to legislate the best cars off the road for irrelevant trumped up reasons.  Even after being hand made with "exotic" materials in an intentionally limited edition, the Xl1 still only costs $60,000. There is a lot more of a market for this car than 2,000 units at that price, have no doubt, this car is being held back on purpose. In this case the vehicle in question is the Volkswagen XL1, a two-person,  "one-liter" concept car (i.e., a vehicle capable of averaging 100 km per liter of fuel, or about 235 MPG) originally shown to the public back in 2002 and modified (and renamed) several times since over the intervening years.  The latest unveiled version of the XL1, already put into production, is a plug-in diesel-electric hybrid described thusly by Green Car Reports: XL1 Green Car Reports The Volkswagen XL1 is a plug-in diesel hybrid with a body seemingly beamed in from a future time. It's the physical representation of the benefits of reducing weight and improving aerodynamics. The small body may only take two people, but it's allowed for an incredibly streamlined body with a drag coefficient of only 0.189. Low weight  only 1,752 lbs  means only a small engine and electric motor is needed to deliver respectable performance. Much of the car is constructed from carbon fiber, aluminum and titanium. VW says the car will do 261 mpg, though the real figure will be lower than that should it ever be tested under EPA guidelines. Even so, it'll still use comfortably less fuel than any vehicle currently on sale. A diesel engine of only 0.8 liters and 2 cylinders capacity produces 47 horsepower, with a further 27 horses delivered by the electric motor. Power reaches the wheels via a 7-speed dual-clutch gearbox. Those figures sound miniscule by modern standards, but the XL1 should reach 62 mph in 12.7 seconds. Top speed is 98 mph. Operating alone, the small battery can deliver up to 31 miles of range, and can be charged via plug or regenerative effect. It's true that very few, if any, Volkswagen XL1s will likely be seen on U.S. roads in the immediate future, but that situation will be due to a confluence of factors that does not include a government/Big Oil conspiracy to keep them out of the U.S. First of all, it's not true that the XL1 has "been denied a tour of America because  it is too efficient for the American public to be made widely aware of."  Existing safety and traffic regulations do limit where the current XL1 models can be legally driven in public roads in the U.S., but Volkswagen has taken at least three of the vehicles on tour around the U.S., and the staff of Jalopnik drove one around Manhattan at the end of 2013. Jalopnik Second, the primary reason the XL1 won't be seen in the U.S. anytime soon is that Volkswagen is only producing 200 units for retail sale (not 2,000 as claimed above), all of them to be sold in Europe via some sort of selection (i.e., lottery) process.     200 units But why only 200 cars?  And why only in Europe? As for the first part, the answer is that new vehicles like the XL1 are expensive to develop and produce (and therefore expensive for consumers to afford), and similar forms of automobiles have not yet met with tremendous success on the commercial market, so any automotive company that puts such a model into full-blown production risks sinking a whole lot of money into something that may not sell well at all (especially in the U.S. market, where consumers have very different expectations and preferences than European car buyers do). The XL1 is in many ways still a concept/prototype vehicle, and so Volkswagen is testing the waters by putting out a limited production run to see how many consumers are really interested in shelling out the equivalent of U.S. $150,000 (not $60,000 as claimed above) for a two-person car.  And the testers at Car and Driver found that while the XL1's fuel efficiency might be superb, it might also be somewhat overblown as presented in promotional materials: Car and Driver The XL1 should run 31 miles solely on electric power, says [VW development engineer Ulrich] Mitze. But on the cold and rainy April day we drove it, the small, 60-cell, 5.5-kWh, 150-pound lithium-ion battery pack needed a recharge after only 22 miles.  According to the on-board computer, we are fuel hogs. Having started with a full tank (2.6 gallons) and fully charged batteries, we ended our trip after 67 miles; fuel consumption plummeted at one point to a dismal 128 mpg. Achieving the XL1's theoretical 749-mile range would take a right foot as light as a moonbeam. As for why only Europe, the answer is that the U.S. does have many safety standards in place (enacted many years ago a variety of reasons, none of which was to keep high-mileage vehicles off the U.S. market) that all automobile manufacturers have to meet in order to legally sell their vehicles in America, regulations that sometimes require manufacturers to modify or retrofit models that were produced for sale under less strict regulations in Europe (or other parts of the world).  If Volkswagen wants to test-market their XL1 in limited quantities, there's no reason for them to expend millions of dollars preparing and certifying those vehicles for U.S. safety standards when they can vend  their small lot of cars just as well in the European market without all the added expense.  As noted by USA Today: The XL1 [is] a spaceship-like, ultra-high-mpg, plug-in diesel-electric hybrid. VW used exotic, but obtainable, materials and technologies to craft a mileage-above-all car able to get 261 mpg in European tests, equating, very roughly, to perhaps 200 mpg in U.S. tests. Barely a real production model, it's made in a factory, but largely by hand. It couldn't meet U.S. safety rules and needed changes in German rules to be on the road there. And if one buys into the conspiracy theory that the government and Big Oil are colluding to keep high-mileage vehicles off the U.S. market in order to protect profits from gasoline sales, one has to wonder why those powerful and malevolent entities aren't doing anything to stop Americans from purchasing cars produced by Tesla, superbly-performing vehicles that use no gasoline at all yet still deliver premium performance, have great range for electric cars, have received the highest rating of any automobile ever evaluated by Consumer Reports, are top-rated for safety even under tougher U.S. standards, but are widely available for purchase in the U.S.: Tesla Most Americans may never actually see a Tesla Model S sedan in person, but you will want to know why this car is so important to the automotive industry and what all the media fuss is about. Tesla Motors was founded in 2003 by a group of intrepid Silicon Valley engineers who set out to prove that electric vehicles could be awesome. The name of the company pays homage to Nicola Tesla, a Serbian American inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist, and futurist best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electricity supply system. As the California automakers first production model, the Tesla Model S is 100 percent electric, a car so advanced it sets the new standard for premium performance. This is not a hybrid, nor is it equipped with any kind of "range expanding" gasoline engine. At the heart of the vehicle is the proven Tesla powertrain, delivering both unprecedented range and a thrilling drive experience. The Tesla Model S has won the 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year award, received the highest rating of any automobile in history from Consumer Reports (99 out of 100) and achieved the best possible US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rating. Unlike the internal combustion engine with hundreds of moving pieces that spark, pump, belch, and groan, the Tesla motor has only one moving piece: the rotor. As a result, Model S acceleration is instantaneous, like flipping a switch. Hit the accelerator. In 5.4 seconds, Model S is traveling 60 miles per hour, without hesitation and without a drop of gasoline. As in so many cases, what is attributed to furtive conspiracy is more easily explained away as wishful thinking colliding with the hard, cold realities of economics. Last updated:  14 April 2014    Healey, James R.  "Test Drive: VW XL1 Shows How to Get 200 MPG."   USA Today.  7 December 2013.     Ingram, Antony.  "261 MPG Volkswagen XL1 Production Confirmed, Debuts Geneva."   Green Car Reports.  21 February 2013.     Ingram, Antony.  "Orders for 261-MPG Volkswagen XL1 Exceed Production of 200."   Green Car Reports.  28 October 2013.     Zoellter, Juergen.  "2014 Volkswagen XL1."   Car and Driver.  June 2013.     Green Bay Press Gazette.  "2014 Tesla Model S Sedan Takes the Electric Car to a New Level."   14 April 2014. In May 2023, we reviewed a "Sam's Club Shopper Survey" email scam that promised a gift card or "promo reward" worth either $50 or $90, all for taking a short survey. This was not a legitimate giveaway or promotion from Sam's Club. Any online users who followed the link in the email eventually found that this had little to do with Sam's Club, and a whole lot to do with scammers misleadingly roping people into being charged monthly fees for strange subscriptions. The scam starts with the email about Sam's Club. Its subject line read, "Confirmation Needed." The message claimed that a "Sam's Club Shopper Survey" would provide a $50 gift card simply for taking a "30-second questionnaire." The message came from an email address that ended in @sendinblue.com and was routed throughsightbanner.com. A real message from Sam's Club would come from an email address ending in @samsclub.com. The link in the email led through several redirects and ended onherbonlinereward.com. After a short survey, the website presented several options to purchase various products for "free," purportedly with only shipping and handling needed to be paid. None of these items had anything to do with Sam's Club. The "free" products included a RoboKleen Vacuum, iPad Pro, Everclean Portable Vacuum, Hi-Tech Wireless Ear Pods, 5.3K60 Sports Action Cam, Hair Halo Sonic Blow Dryer, Ring Video Doorbell, and a Ninja NeverDull Knife Set. However, just about all of these offers were part of hidden subscription scams, the kind of scam where monthly subscription fees only appear on separate pages within the terms and conditions. Such scams often make no mention of these fees on the checkout page, even in the grand total. Many of them also don't include a box for customers to check off that would indicate they agree to abide by the terms. In this case, the websites that hosted the hidden subscription scams included getqualitysavings.com, getqualityoffers.com, pixelmaxpro.com, peakproductzone.com, qualityexpressshop.com, premiumgadgetbargains.com, and specialtechdeals.com. getqualitysavings.com getqualityoffers.com pixelmaxpro.com peakproductzone.com qualityexpressshop.com premiumgadgetbargains.com specialtechdeals.com The website that hosted the page for the iPad Pro,premiumonlineshopper.com, did not mention subscription fees in its terms. However, the top of the page said in big letters that anyone looking at the page was a "winner." However, at the same time, the very bottom of the page said in very small letters that the user was simply the "winner" of a single entry into a sweepstakes that had not yet ended. premiumonlineshopper.com If any readers believe that they've been scammed by a hidden subscription scam, we recommend calling your credit card company (or whatever financial institution you paid with) immediately to let them know. A new card number may be needed to ensure no more unauthorized charges are placed on the compromised card. Generally, if any readers believe they have been the victim of fraud, we recommendfiling a report with the FTC. filing a report with the FTC Always remember with online scams that if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. On 5 March 2019, a conspiracy-minded Twitter account shared a video purporting to be from the site of a construction project funded by West Virginia taxpayer money for the purpose of housing 321 Syrian refugees. The video also claimed this was being done at the expense of regular Americans who, the man claims, were being pushed into substandard housing. He asserted that the area he was standing in will be a sharia zone, and no non-Muslims will be allowed to enter: a video  Several factual problems exist with assertions in this video. Chief among them is the fact that this video shows the Littlepage Terrace housing project, a low-income, housing tax-credit property allocated through the West Virginia Housing Development Fund, which houses zero Syrian refugees and many regular Americans. Several lines of evidence support this conclusion. First, someone who works next to the project refers to it as Littlepage: Littlepage Terrace   Second, a wider, composite view of the mans video shows clearly identifiable markers of the Littlepage housing complex, including a tell-tale smokestack and buildings that exactly match the structures built at Littlepage:   For comparison, heres video shot at Littlepage:  Third, Mark Taylor, the chief executive officer of Charleston-Kanawha Housing Authority, which works with the Littlepage Terrace project, confirmed to us by email that the suspect video was taken at that site during renovations that likely occurred in May 2017. He also confirmed to us that the community houses no Syrian refugees. Another significant oversight in the tweeted narrative is that the entire state of West Virginia has taken in far less than 321 Syrian refugees in total. In 2016, the year the United States took in the largest number of Syrian refugees, West Virginia resettled only five of them in their state. On 1 February 2017, the Trump Administration announced Executive Order 13769, commonly referred to as the travel ban," which indefinitely suspended the admission of Syrian refugees to the United States. In 2017, West Virginia took in 13 refugees, but these individuals were not necessarily Syrian. largest number only five travel ban 13 refugees It is true that Littlepage was torn down and rebuilt, but that decision had nothing to do with refugee housing. Instead, the renovations aimed to reduce crime and revitalize the area, as reported by West Virginias WCHS television station in 2016: reported The Charleston-Kanawha Housing Authority is now on the last phase of revitalizing three housing projects. Similar to Orchard Manor and Washington Manor, Littlepage Terrace will be demolished and rebuilt as two-story town homes.  This housing project was built nearly 80 years ago with no air conditioning and poor visibility. Now it is simply not a secure living space.  The goal for these new developments is to reduce crime and revitalize the area. Because the housing complex displayed was not built for Syrian refugees, and because the state has taken virtually no Syrian refugees at all, we rank the claims made in this video as aggressively and demonstrably false. Charleston-Kanawha Housing.  Developments - Littlepage Terrace."
  Accessed 14 March 2019. Zong, Jie, and Jeanne Batalova.  Syrian Refugees in the United States
  Migration Policy Institute.  17 January 2017. Beck, Erin.  Few Syrian Refugees Resettle in WV, At Least for Now.
  Charleston Gazette-Mail.  2 September 2016. Whitehouse.gov.  Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States."
  27 January 2017. U.S. Department of State.  Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2019."
  24 September 2018. Gunderson, Kaela.  Residents, Housing Officials Hope Littlepage Terrace Project Will Boost Safety.
  WCHS/WCAH ABC 8.  3 August 2016. In October 2017, multiple versions of a dubious post titled "Pizza Hut is giving 3 FREE Large Pizza Coupon on their 58th Anniversary" circulated on Facebook. The link lead to suspicious domains including pizzahutfree.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, and massiveoffers.xyz/p/, none of which followed the proper formatting for a pizzahut.com subdomain, which is "link.pizzahut.com." Those who clicked through found a page that looked somewhat legitimate, but showed signs of being a very common survey scam. Users were first asked a series of questions: page very survey scam   The page followed a common scammer template of appropriating Pizza Hut's logo and Facebook's visual interface, but sloppily boasted that entrants had "a chance to get [a] Papa [John's] Coupon." Any interaction with the prompts (again mentioning Papa John's 58th anniversary, not Pizza Hut's) led to a screen encouraging potential victims to spread the scam further on Facebook:   Underneath the "Congratulations" interface was a series of what appeared to be comments from real Facebook users who'd successfully redeemed the purported coupon. All of the profiles featured were for individuals with jobs displayed as "MD, at the Hospital":   Pizza Hut addressed a previous flood of customer queries on their Facebook wall during a similar scam in May 2016: Facebook users continue to regularly encounter survey scams (quite often the "anniversary" version) on the social network. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau advised users how not to fall prey: anniversary article Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Patterson, Emily.  Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card. 
 Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that New Mexico gained 75,800 jobs from December 2002 to July 2007, which is slightly lower than Richardson's claim. As our friends at FactCheck.org note in thisarticle, Richardson has consistently cited the higher number, even when the actual number was lower. For our ruling, however, we'll rely on the current 75,800 and call it mostly true. It's difficult to calculate how big a role his tax cuts played in getting businesses to create those jobs. James Peach, an economics professor at New Mexico State University, said many factors make a company decide to add jobs and that tax incentives often play only a modest role. Indeed, much of the job growth in the state began before Richardson became governor, Peach said. Still, Peach said Richardson's tax incentives and income tax cuts have created a favorable atmosphere for business that is a stark change from the state's mentality in the mid-1970s, when state officials refused to provide help to a promising young company named Microsoft. The climate here has changed considerably since then, Peach said. Bill Richardson has been a big part of that. He's not the whole story, but he's been a big part of it. In November 2019, we received multiple inquiries about the accuracy of claims that U.S. President Donald Trump had been fined $2 million by a New York court because he was found to have "stolen" charitable donations intended for military veterans.  For example, former Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate Qasim Rashid tweeted on several occasions in November 2019 that Trump had "stolen" $2.8 million in charitable donations from veterans, and that he had admitted as much in court: tweeted several occasions The President stole $2.8M in charity from Veterans & spent it on himself & admits to his crime in court documents. As you speak of honor & serviceWhere is your accountability of a President who trampled on both? Why are you silent Rep @RobWittman?#VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP @RobWittman #VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP  Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   One of Rashid's tweets was later reposted in the form of a meme by the Facebook page Act.tv. (The meme was later deleted): tweets meme   Another widely shared meme claimed, "It is a fact that draft dodger Trump stole charitable cash donations that were meant for our veterans":   These social media posts and memes grossly misrepresented the facts surrounding a November 2019 settlement agreement between the New York Attorney General, on one hand, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump himself, and his children Ivanka and Eric, on the other hand.  Trump did not "steal" charitable donations intended for veterans, nor did he admit as much in court. All the donations intended for veterans charities ended up going to veterans charities. However, Trump's 2016 presidential campaign did direct and benefit from the manner in which many of those donations were distributed to the charities.  The claims were related to a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General's office in June 2018 against the Trump Foundation, the president, and Ivanka and Eric Trump, in their capacity as board directors of the charity. We've written about the case in detail in a previous fact check. fact check In her June 2018 petition to the state's Supreme Court, then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood wrote: wrote "For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. One of the examples of "improper political activity" cited in the lawsuit related to a January 2016 fundraiser that the Trump Foundation and Trump's presidential election campaign jointly operated.  In January 2016, days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump complained of unfair treatment by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and announced he would be boycotting the next Republican primary debate and instead host a fundraiser for veterans' charities in Iowa.  announced The event raised around $5.6 million, with roughly half going to the Trump Foundation, and half going directly to specific veterans charities. The Trump campaign directed the distribution of funds to recipient charities, and Trump himself repeatedly presented checks at campaign rallies and more broadly used the distribution of funds to boost his presidential campaign.  On the basis of those allegations, Underwood requested several outcomes, including asking the court to "dissolve the Foundation for its persistently illegal conduct, enjoin its board members from future service as a director of any not-for-profit authorized by New York law, to obtain restitution and penalties, and to direct the Foundation to cooperate with the Attorney General in the lawful distribution of its remaining assets to qualified charitable entities. The parties to the lawsuit spent around a year negotiating a settlement. In December 2018, for example, all sides agreed that the Foundation would be dissolved and its assets distributed to a list of mutually agreed charities.  agreed In November 2019, the New York Supreme Court published the final settlement. As part of that settlement between the parties, Trump, his children and the Foundation stipulated to (agreed upon) a set of facts, among them the following section related to the Iowa veterans fundraiser: settlement The website for the Iowa Fundraiser, DonaldTrumpForVets.com, was developed by campaign personnel and, with the agreement of the Foundation, featured the name of the Foundation at the top of the home page and informed visitors that "the Donald J. Trump Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization"; The campaign planned, organized and paid for the Iowa Fundraiser, with administrative assistance from the Foundation; and the campaign directed the timing, amounts and recipients of the Foundation's grants to charitable organizations supporting military veterans; The Iowa Fundraiser raised approximately $5.6 million in donations for veterans groups, of which $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation; the balance was contributed by donors directly to various veterans' groups. At Campaign events in Iowa on January 30, January 31, and February 1, 2016, Mr. Trump personally displayed presentation copies of Foundation checks to Iowa veterans' groups. On May 31, 2016, at a Campaign press conference, Mr. Trump announced the grants the Foundation made to veterans' groups with the proceeds of the Iowa Fundraiser and, on or about the same day, the Campaign posted on its website a chart identifying the grant recipients. The New York Attorney General's office objected to the way in which the Trump Foundation had been used to advance the interests of the Trump campaign, and especially the way in which the campaign dictated how more than half of the funds were to be distributed, with Trump at times personally handing out checks at campaign rallies. The Attorney General's Office did not object on the grounds that Trump, his children, or his foundation, had stolen or kept the money.  Indeed, in an order accompanying the November 2019 settlement, New York Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla wrote that: wrote The Attorney General has argued that I should award damages for waste of the entire $2,823,000 that was donated directly to the Foundation at the Fundraiser. In opposition, Mr. Trump notes that the Foundation ultimately disbursed all of the Funds to charitable organizations and that he has sought to resolve consensually this proceeding. As stated above, I find that the $2,823,000 raised at the Fundraiser was used for Mr. Trumps political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trumps campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation, in violation of [New York law]. However, taking into consideration that the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans, I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000, without interest, rather than the entire $2,823,000 sought by the Attorney General. [Emphasis added]. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.) Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have "stolen" or kept the funds, and so none "admitted" to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.  The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having "stolen" the donations.  Mac Guill, Dan. "Did New York Reprimand Trump Family for 'Stealing From a Children's Cancer Charity'?"
 Snopes.com. 31 October 2019. Underwood, Barbara D. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Verified Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 14 June 2018. Shane III, Leo. "Donald Trump to Skip GOP Debate, Hold Fundraiser for Wounded Troops Instead."
 Military Times. 26 January 2016. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation Concerning the Dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation."
  19 December 2018. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation of Final Settlement."
  7 November 2019. Scarpulla, Saliann. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Decision and Order On Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 7 November 2019. Claim:  African-Americans are entitled to a $5,000 slavery reparation tax credit.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] This goes out to all my friends, family, and everyone in the African American community. Once you receive this message please write down the number and then pass it along to every AfricanAmerican you know. As you my know, all African Americans living here in the United States are descendants of slavery,therefore our government has finally passed a bill to pay all descendants back. The way they are paying us back is through a refund called the, "Black Inheritance Tax Refund/40 Acres and a Mule". When you call this number you'll give them your name, address, and phone number and they'll send you out a packet, which includes further details and information on how to receive the refund. I was informed that it will take only two weeks to receive the packet and then two weeks to receive themoney. Now, if you know our government I bet they are not expecting a lot of people to call for this refund, and they may be right, because many of us will not be informed of this. Therefore, this is why I am taking it upon myself to pass on this information, so our community will soon be informed through word-of-mouth about what has been owed to our ancestors all these years. Black Inheritance Tax Refund 1-800-441-5629 press #3 to direct you to the appropriate line open betweenEast Coast: 8am and 12amWest Coast: 5am and 9pm Expect to wait anywhere from 5mins-25mins (There will not be any music to entertain you while you wait!) Ps: You must be 18 years or older and I'm assuming a legal residence of the United States. So, request an application for yourself, husband, wife, sister, brother, father, mother, etc, or just pass the number along. God Bless You All and please check this out!!!!!!!! Origins:  In 2000, bogus letters claiming certain senior citizens were eligible for slavery reparations or higher Social Security payments were circulating in black churches in the South and elsewhere. The letters claimed blacks born before 1928 were eligible for a $5,000 "Negro Inheritance Tax Refund" due to a "Slave Reparation Act," and folks born between 1911 and 1926 might be entitled to higher monthly Social Security payments.  This was but one of the many forms the "slavery reparation tax credit" misinformation has taken over the years.  An April 1993 Lena Sherrod commentary entitled "Forty Acres and a Mule" which appeared in Essence magazine dealt with the concept that reparations were owed to the descendants of African-Americans who were forced to work unpaid for 246 years, and that African-Americans were owed a tax rebate for years of legalized racial discrimination.  Sherrod wrote: The government also owes African-Americans a tax rebate for the 60 years of segregation and Jim Crow that followed slavery. Although we were consigned by law to second-class citizenship, we were still forced to pay first-class taxes . . . the delinquent tax rebate [is] now estimated . . . to be at $43,209 per household."  Since de facto racial discrimination continues to function as a hidden Black tax, it ought to be deductible. So when income-tax time rolls around, on line 59 of form 1040  which asks you to list 'other payments'  simply enter $43,209 in 'Black taxes' and compute accordingly. This commentary undoubtedly helped to foster the belief that a real income tax deduction was available as a form of reparation to the descendants of slaves. In 2002, people were being urged in e-mail to call an 800 number. Yet it's all the same  hoax. No matter whether you got the letter from your church or read about the give-back in a magazine, the "reparations credit" does not and never has existed. Those who claim the deduction because they are black can be subject to fines and penalties, so really, really think twice before trying to wring it out of Uncle Sam. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can fine a taxpayer $500 for filing a frivolous claim. Moreover, if the tax department fails to catch the erroneous deduction at the time of filing, it has an additional six years to right its error. Upon catching the error, the taxmen would not only strike off the deduction, but would calculate interest owed on the new balance of tax due, dating it to the year of the original return. (For example, if you claimed the credit in 1994, and the IRS caught it in 1998, your 1994 return would be re-computed to remove the effect of the bogus deduction. You'd now get a bill from the IRS for the re-computed difference between tax paid and tax due, plus all the interest that had piled up on it across those four years, and maybe even a $500 penalty for trying to pull the wool over the tax department's eyes.  Eeesh.) IRS offices across the nation have received thousands of requests daily for Form 2439, which some people have been mistakenly led to believe reimburses the descendants of slaves. Form 2439 is actually for shareholders trying to claim undistributed capital gains.  Form 2439 Though word of the phony benefits is most often spread by well-meaning individuals whose only motivation is ensuring those who are supposedly in line for the break hear about it, at times unscrupulous tax preparers have stepped in to turn what is already a heart-wrenching disappointment into an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the unwary by charging fees of hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars to "help" people apply for these nonexistent benefits.  In a common version of this take-down, a con man promises his unwary clients that he can obtain up to $40,000 in "slave reparation" credits for them from the government and offers to file the necessary tax forms on their behalf in exchange for a percentage of their refunds.  He then loads up his clients' tax returns with all manner of deductions and credits they're not entitled to take and thereby scams the government into sending them refund checks.  When the IRS later goes over the returns more thoroughly and starts clamoring for their money back, the victims are left holding the bag. The $43,209 "Black tax refund" figure one sometimes hears bandied about is said to be based on the estimated value of "40 acres and a mule," a reparation supposedly laid out in an 1866 bill which lore claims was passed by Congress but was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. The truth is a bit more complicated than that. The origins of the belief that the U.S. government promised 40 acres of land and a mule to freed slaves after the Civil War are indefinite.  One possible source of this claim is Special Field Order No. 15, Special Field Order No. 15 Sherman was neither a humanitarian reformer nor a man with any particular concern for blacks. Instead of seeing Field Order 15 as a blueprint for the transformation of Southern society, he viewed it mainly as a way of relieving the immediate pressure caused by a large number of impoverished blacks following his army. The land grants, he later claimed, were intended only to make "temporary provisions for the freedmen and their families during the rest of the war," not to convey permanent possession. Understandably, however, the freedmen assumed that the land was to be theirs, especially after Gen. Rufus Saxton, assigned by Sherman to oversee the implementation of his order, informed a large gathering of blacks "that they were to be put in possession of lands, upon which they might locate their families and work out for themselves a living and respectability." Debate continues over whether Sherman acted solely on his own authority in issuing Special Field Order No. 15 or whether he had the approval of the War Department (or even President Lincoln himself), but the end result was that a new policy (known as Howard's Circular 15) issued by the White House in September 1865 ordered the restoration of land to pardoned owners and thereby took away from freedmen the land appropriated for them by Sherman under Special Field Order No. 15  (The order made no provisions for giving mules to freedmen, but Foner notes that after issuing it, "Sherman later provided that the army could assist [freedmen] with the loan of mules.") Another possible source of the "40 acres and a mule" belief is the creation of the Freedmen's Bureau (originally the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands), a federal agency established as a subsidiary of the War Department  in March 1865 (a month before the end of the Civil War) to deal with issues concerning refugees and freedmen within states under reconstruction, including the management of abandoned and confiscated property.  One of the provisions of the Freedmen's Bureau Act directed that the bureau's commissioner should "have authority to set apart, for the use of loyal refugees and freedmen, such tracts of land within the insurrectionary states as shall have been abandoned, or to which the United States shall have acquired title by confiscation or sale, or otherwise, and to every male citizen, whether refugee or freedman, as aforesaid, there shall be assigned not more than forty acres of such land."  However, this act did not propose giving property to freed slaves (the land was to be leased to freedmen for three years, then made available for purchase by them), nor did it make any mention of mules.   Freedmen's Bureau Freedmen's Bureau Act President Johnson did not veto the Freedmen's Bureau Act, which was passed by Congress in March 1865 and signed by President Lincoln.  (Johnson did not assume the presidency until Lincoln's assassination the following month.)   Two events occurred in February 1866, both of which have been misstated as overturning the "forty acres" provision of the Freedmen's Bureau Act:  An amendment to the Freedmen's Bureau Bill (also known as the "Second Freedmen's Bureau Act") proposed by Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, to add "forfeited estates of the enemy" to the land available to blacks, was overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Representatives.  (At that time, the only group of slaveholders who were compelled to provide their former slaves with land were Indians who sided with the Confederacy.)  President Johnson vetoed the Freedman's Bureau Bill, which sought to extend the life of the bureau indefinitely (it had originally been chartered only for one year after the end of the Civil War) and to greatly increase its powers.  Congress passed the bill again (in modified form) over Johnson's veto in July 1866. The Southern Homestead Act of 1866 did in fact make land in five southern states available to freed blacks, but only public land, not plantations or other property confiscated from former slaveholders.  Unfortunately, most of the land still available in the South for homesteading was too swampy and too far away from transportation links to be of much good to freedmen, and even then the largest portion of this inferior land was claimed by whites (often for quick resale to lumber companies).   Although the notion of a "Black Inheritance Tax Refund" has long since been debunked and disclaimed, it nonetheless lives on and continues to cause headaches to the IRS and taxpayers alike.  In April 2002, the Washington Post reported that the IRS had received more than 100,000 tax returns seeking nonexistent slavery-tax credits and had mistakenly paid out more than $30 million in erroneous refunds in 2000 and 2001.  And in April 2005, the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining a New York man from preparing income tax returns for others because he had "been including bogus tax credits such as reparations for African-American slavery and segregation." Barbara "taxing the imagination" Mikkelson Last updated:  27 May 2011    Brown, Timothy.  "Black Churches in the South Targeted in Mail Hoax."   The Associated Press.  31 August 2000.     Deibel, Mary.  "IRS Warns Black Taxpayers About Reparation-Claim Scam."   The Washington Times.  7 October 2000  (p. A2).     Fennell, Edward.  "Slavery Reparations Program Labeled Lie."   The [Charleston] Post and Courier.  24 September 2000  (p. B1).    Foner, Eric.  Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution.  New York: Harper & Row, 1988.  ISBN 0-060-91453-X  (pp. 70-71, 245-246).     Foner, Eric and John Garraty.  The Reader's Companion to American History.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991.  ISBN 0-395-51372-3  (pp. 987-988).      Josar, David.  "IRS Warns Against Trying to Get Refund for Reparations."   The Detroit News.  28 August 1996  (p. D1).     Kessler, Glenn.  "IRS Paid $30 Million in Credits for Slavery."   The Washington Post.  13 April 2002  (p. A1).     La Hay, Patricia.  "Slavery Reparations Tax Break Is Illegal."   The Arizona Republic.  9 August 1997  (p. A1).     McLeod, Ramon.  "Even Street Gangs Are Among Those Involved in Fraud."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  13 April 1996  (p. A17).     Moore, Linda.  "League Explains Nonrole in Slavery Reparations Hoax."   The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal.  15 September 2000  (p. C2).     Oubre, Claude F.  Forty Acres and a Mule: The Freedmen's Bureau and Black Land Ownership.  Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978.  ISBN 0-807-10298-9.     Sherrod, L.G.  "Forty Acres and a Mule."   Essence.  April 1993  (p. 124).     Stiehm, Jamie.  "IRS Official Warns of Tax Hoax Using Slave Reparations."   The Baltimore Sun.  12 February 2002.     The Associated Press.   "Blacks Targeted in Slavery Reparation Scam."   6 October 2000.     Chicago Sun-Times.  "Reparations Scam Preys on Ignorance."   17 July 1996  (p. 47).     Chicago Tribune.  "Tax Myths Don't Add Up at IRS."    23 February 1997  (p. C7).     Reuters.  "Man Barred from Making Slavery Tax Claims."    15 April 2005. A day after a Florida man landed a gyrocopter on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol to demand campaign finance reform, U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson talked up his own efforts to focus on small donations and his potential U.S. Senate bid. Grayson, an Orlando Democrat, told a reporter forDemocracy Nowon April 16 that he will probably run in a primary againstU.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Jupiter, for Marco Rubios Senate seat in 2016. As Democratic Party activists and leaders consider their best path to winning that seat, Grayson wants to remind them of his populist fundraising: Im the only member of the House of Representatives who raised most of his campaign funds in the last election from small contributions of less than $200, he said. We decided to check if Grayson holds a record in the House for contributions of less than $200. (A spokesman for Grayson told PolitiFact Florida that he is likely a few weeks away from making his decision but reiterated that he has said he willprobably run.) Counting small donations The Federal Election Commission considers donations of less than $200 as small donations, which dont have to be individually reported. Instead, candidates report a total amount of money from small donors. In the House for the 2013-14 election cycle, those who received the largest share of their campaign revenue from small contributions were Democrats -- andGraysonwas indeed No. 1, according to a November 2014analysisby the Center for Responsive Politics. Graysons small donations totaled about $1.8 million and equaled 57 percent of his $3.1 million donations. The House member who raised the next highest amount in small donations was FloridasDebbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston, and head of the Democratic National Committee. She raised $1.2 million in small donations, which equaled 47 percent of her contributions. (Wasserman Schultz recently ruled out running for Senate in 2016.) The third place House finisher wasU.S. Rep. Keith Ellisonof Minnesota who raised about $850,000 in small donations, or 41 percent of his pot. On theSenate sidefor the 2013-14 cycle, Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota topped the list with $11.7 million in small donations, equaling about 40 percent of his donations. (During his Democracy Now interview, Grayson mentioned U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont as a leader in the Senate in raising small donations. Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats and was re-elected in 2012, raised almost $5 million in small donations, or about61 percent.) Who racks up small donations and why? So why are some member of Congress small donor leaders? In the case of Franken, a formerSaturday Night Livestar, the Center for Responsive Politics noted that name recognition in combination with hailing from a state with a strong grassroots tradition doesnt hurt. Graysons persona as a Democratic firebrand likely contributes to his fundraising abilities. The most successful small-money fundraisers mix media exposure with partisan taunting and ideological appeals,Adam Bonica, a Stanford political science professor, wrote in 2011. Graysonis famous for his provocative taunts against Republicans, such asdescribing the GOPhealth care plan as if you do get sick, die quickly, orcomparing Dick Cheney to a vampire. Michael J. Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute and a political science professor at the University at Albany,saidpolarization alone wont get candidates a lot of money in small donations. In many cases, candidates are tapping into political organizations with an existing network of small donors. Grayson, for example, has received money bundled through ActBlue, an online Democratic fundraising group that focuses on competitive races. Candidates got their boost from national organizations that created support for the candidates by recommending them to donors who trusted the bundling organization(s) and who probably would not otherwise have known who the candidates were, Malbin wrote. Our ruling Grayson said, Im the only member of the House of Representatives who raised most of his campaign funds in the last election from small contributions of less than $200. Graysons small donations equaled 57 percent of his donations during the most recent cycle, putting him ahead of second-place finisher Wasserman Schultz at 47 percent, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. We rate this claim True.