Colonel Sanders Left Money to the KKK?
Claim:  Colonel Sanders left instructions requiring KFC to donate money to the Ku Klux Klan or feed the homeless for free.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 2000] I heard today that Colonel Sanders' will devotes 10% of KFC's yearly profits to the Ku Klux Klan. Since it's a legal document this is unbreakable!  [Collected via e-mail, 2000] My brother swears that Colonel Sanders of KFC fame, bequested in his will over a million dollars to the KKK.  [Collected via e-mail, 2005] I heard that the name [of Kentucky Fried Chicken] was changed because KFC didn't want to give out a free meal to a hungry person seeking some help. Supposedly, somewhere back in time, the Colonel had put a preposition in his business statement that Kentucky Fried chicken would supply any broke hungry person with a meal free of charge per day if they asked. Someone had read or heard this and demanded it, and sued them. Once word had gotten out, they would be subject to the masses doing the same thing, so they changed their name to KFC  that's the way I heard it ...  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] I heard a rumor that the Colonel from Kentucky Fried Chicken had a policy to serve any homeless person that entered his restaurants who was hungry and had no money. Once he passed away the new executives allegedly changed the name to "KFC" so they could do away with that policy. Origins:  One of the curiosities of urban legendry is that nearly every founder of a fast food chain who is publicly identifiable by virtue of having appeared in his company's advertisements has become the subject of rumors associating him (and his company) with some of the most publicly vilified groups society has to offer, such as satan worshippers and the KKK.  Such rumors have dogged, at   one time or another, Ray Kroc of McDonald's, Carl Karcher of Carl's Jr., Dave Thomas of Wendy's, and Harland Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken.    Why this class of legend has been so assiduously linked to the fast food industry is something we haven't yet fathomed: fast food founders don't seem to be, as a group, of any particular religious, geographic, or political affiliation.  And the specific linking of Kentucky Fried Chicken's founder, Harland Sanders, with the Ku Klux Klan doesn't seem to have any basis in fact, other than a vague, naive assumption that a businessman who epitomized the popular image of a 19th century Southern gentleman  a distinguished, elderly man with white hair, moustache, and goatee who wore white suits and black ties, posed with a cane, and affected the honorary  title of "Colonel"  must be a Klan sympathizer. What rumors such as the claim that "Colonel Sanders' will devotes 10% of KFC's yearly profits to the Ku Klux Klan" reflect is the misperception that Harland David Sanders owned KFC until the day he died.  In fact, Sanders sold his interest in Kentucky Fried Chicken long before his death,  agreeing in 1964 to a $2 million buyout of his U.S. operations by a group of investors (who took the company public a few years later) and turning his entire holdings in the company's Canadian franchises over to charity in 1965, so even if Sanders' will had contained a "KKK donation" bequest (which it didn't), it wouldn't have been legally enforceable.  Sanders did continue to serve as KFC's spokesperson and appear in their advertising for many years after the 1964 sale, a participation that undoubtedly led many consumers to believe that he was active in the chain's ownership and management until he finally passed away in 1980. Ditto for the claim that Kentucky Fried Chicken was legally required to provide free meals to the homeless until it cleverly ducked the responsibility by changing its name to "KFC."  Although Sanders did give away a good deal of money during his lifetime and may occasionally have taken pity on some down-and-out types and offered them food at no charge, he neither left any mandate obligating the Kentucky Fried Chicken company to engage in the practice nor had any standing to do so.  And, in any case, the company couldn't have evaded that imperative simply by changing its name.  (Imagine what a shambles the business world would be if people and businesses could discharge debts and other legal obligations merely by filing some change of name documents!)  As we document in another KFC-related article, Kentucky Fried Chicken changed its corporate name to KFC in 1991 for several reasons, foremost among them that increasingly health-conscious consumers were becoming wary of foods advertised as "fried." article Upon his death in 1980, Harland Sanders left behind an estate that was smaller than expected and a will that contained no unusual provisions: The late Col. Harland Sanders, the founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken who donated millions to charity, left an estate of less than $1.5 million, according to his will. Most of the estate will go into a trust, with Citizens Fidelity Bank and Trust Co. as executor and trustee, according to documents filed in Shelby County District Court. Sanders, who died Dec. 16 [1980] at 90, made four individual bequests in addition to the money he put in trust, [Kentucky Fried Chicken spokesman John] Cox said. He left a watch to one grandson and a Masonic ring to another grandson. He left $2,000 to Louis Broadus of Richmond, Ky., a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise holder and friend, Cox said, and $5,000 to Harland Williams of Nashville, the son of a longtime friend. Cox said Sanders' estate may be far less than $1.5 million, since $1,187,557 is an estimate of "property of unknown value" such as notes and accounts receivable. Last updated:  26 December 2010    Darden, Robert.  Secret Recipe: Why KFC Is Still Cookin' After 50 Years.   Irving, TX: Tapestry Press, 2002.  ISBN 1-930819-12-9  (p. 86). Secret Recipe: Why KFC Is Still Cookin' After 50 Years    de Vos, Gail.  Tales, Rumors and Gossip.   Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1996.  ISBN 1-56308-190-3  (p. 140). Tales, Rumors and Gossip    Turner, Patricia.  I Heard It Through the Grapevine.   Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California, 1993.   ISBN 0-520-08185-4  (pp. 99-101, 167, 171). I Heard It Through the Grapevine    Associated Press.  "Sanders Will Under $1.5 Million."   Daytona Beach Morning Journal.  31 December 2010  (p. A2).
President Barack Obama is expected to take another stab at raising the minimum wage when he delivers his State of the Union speech this week. But Republicans appear ready to stymie that proposal once again. The topic came up Jan. 26, 2014, onFox News Sundayduring a discussion between host Chris Wallace and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Isn't it reasonable that somebody who's working full time, 40 hours a week, should be able to live above the poverty line? Wallace asked McConnell, referring to Obamas calls to hike the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Yeah. But of course, the minimum wage is mostly an entry-level wage for young people, McConnell replied. We have a crisis in employment among young people right now. McConnell went on to say that he believes raising the minimum wage will hurt employment and we ought to be doing things that create more jobs. But what about McConnells characterization of minimum wage workers? Is it a workforce mostly made up of young folks? Well stick to the federal minimum wage, which is $7.25, since thats the topic up for debate. As it stands,21 states and the District of Columbiahave set their minimum wage higher than the federal level. A spokesman for McConnell pointed us to a study by the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics, Characterizations of Minimum Wage Workers, released in February of last year. Were familiar with it, having written a couple offact-checksrecentlyon the minimum wage. According to the report, of the 75 million people making hourly wages in 2012, about 1.6 million earned the minimum wage while another 2 million earned less than $7.25 an hour. (How does one earn less than the minimum wage? Certainexceptionsare carved out for vocational education students, full-time students employed by retail or service establishments, agriculture, or institutions of higher education, and those impaired by a physical or mental disability.) The underlying data in the report largely backs up McConnells claim. In fact, the report even says Minimum wage workers tend to be young. How young? Only 20 percent of individuals earning hourly wages are ages 16-24, but that demographic makes up half of all individuals earning at or below the minimum wage. About a quarter of those individuals are teenagers ages 16-19 and another 25 percent are 20 to 24 years old. Broadened to include 25-29 year olds, and nearly two-thirds of all workers making at or below the minimum wage are younger than 30. The older you get, the more likely youre making more than $7.25. But McConnell also described minimum wage jobs as entry-level. Thats a characterization with which some may take an issue. Entry-level jobs typically indicate positions that, while at the bottom of the totem pole, have potential for growth. Young adults take entry-level jobs at companies hoping to climb the career ladder. And while wages are lower, there is potential to see considerable salary increases and/or career advancement. A majority of minimum-wage jobs dont really fit that description. According to the report, two-thirds are part-time, and half of all minimum wage jobs are in the leisure or hospitality industry. This includes food service jobs like waiters and cooks, hotel employees or movie theater workers, among other jobs. While many of those jobs are traditionally held by young people, they dont typically lead to careers in those industries. The same can be said for retail jobs, which make up another 16 percent of all minimum wage-or-less positions. Our ruling McConnell said the minimum wage is mostly an entry-level wage for young people. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that indeed half of all workers making a minimum wage are 16 to 24, and another 20 percent are in their late 20s or early 30s. Thats a large chunk of the minimum wage workforce, though about 30 percent of people making the minimum wage are 35 and older. McConnell also goes a bit too far in calling these jobs entry-level. For most young people, these are part-time jobs in the food or retail businesses or similar industries with little hope for career advancement. We rate McConnells statement as Mostly True. Claim:  E-mail reproduces a 1999 newspaper article warning about potential troubles with Fannie Mae. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] Right out of the pages of the NY Times!!!And look at the date..!!!  September 30, 1999Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending  In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets  including the New York metropolitan region  will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  In any crisis, one of the most common reactions is to ponder the question, "How did we get into this mess?"  People begin to search for explanations about who was responsible for bringing about the current state of  affairs, who had the ability to head it off (but failed to act or was thwarted), and who foresaw the looming danger (but declined to speak up or was ignored).  With the United States currently in the throes of an economic crisis, of which one symptom was the September 2008 government takeover of the foundering Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly known as Fannie Mae), a nine-year-old warning about the home mortgage underwriter's being vulnerable to economic problems that could require government rescue was bound to pique public interest. On 30 September 1999, the New York Times published an article entitled "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending" by Steven A. Holmes.  The complete text of the article is available online, but in a nutshell the Times reported that Fannie Mae was easing its credit requirements for home mortgage loans in response to increasing pressure from a variety of groups: text  Clinton administration officials who wanted Fannie Mae "to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people" (particularly minority groups).  Stockholders who wanted Fannie Mae "to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."  Banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies (from whom Fannie Mae purchases loans) who wanted the company to facilitate  "more loans to subprime borrowers." In light of recent events, what caught the attention of most readers was a couple of paragraphs in the middle of the article cautioning about the possible consequences of Fannie Mae's loosening its credit requirements: In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.  "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry." Another New York Times article that has attained a significant amount retrospective interest is an 11 September 2003 article entitled "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae" by Stephen Labaton, which reported on the efforts of the Bush administration to create a new regulatory agency to assume oversight of those mortgage lenders: article The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt  is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. Of especial interest to current readers were the following paragraphs about Congressional resistance to the Bush administration's regulatory proposal: Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. "These two entities  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Last updated:  2 October 2008    Sources:   Holmes, Steven A.  "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending."   The New York Times.  30 September 1999.    Labaton, Stephen.  "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae."   The New York Times.  11 September 2003. FACT CHECK: Do Olive Garden restaurants donate money to Planned Parenthood?  Claim: Olive Garden restaurants donate money to Planned Parenthood.   Examples:  [Collected via Twitter, July 2015] @olivegarden gives $ to planned parenthood, who are accused of selling baby body parts. No more breadsticks for me. #PlannedButcherhood @olivegarden #PlannedButcherhood  hotpink (@hotpink100) July 21, 2015 July 21, 2015   @PPact #IStandWithShuttingDownPP Profiting off the most vulnerable: terrified mothers & babies. @olivegarden donates to #PlannedParenthood. @PPact #IStandWithShuttingDownPP @olivegarden #PlannedParenthood  ConservativeOutreach (@conservoutreach) July 21, 2015 July 21, 2015   Olive Garden restaurants fund Planned Parenthood: think of the skulls they crush with that money, next time u chew an olive there...  Christian Tea Party (@ChristianTParty) July 21, 2015 July 21, 2015   I will boycott all companies which support @ppact. None are essential and there are plenty of other options. @AriDavidUSA @olivegarden @ppact @AriDavidUSA @olivegarden  Joe American (@MidAmericanGuy) July 22, 2015 July 22, 2015   Origins: Beginning on 14 July 2015, a controversy involving Planned Parenthood dominated conversation topics on social media. Among the rumors that were subsequently circulated about Planned Parenthood  was the claim that Olive Garden restaurants (or their parent company, Darden) is currently donating (or had previously donated) money to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood The claim about Olive Garden donating to Planned Parenthood was not new: Does Olive Garden still support Planned Parenthood? Last info found from 2007 https://bit.ly/5738R #prolife #tcot #prolife #tcot  Ms. B. (@msbeeee) June 18, 2009 June 18, 2009   Write to Darden Restaurants (Red Lobster, Olive Garden), stop giving to Planned Parenthood https://t.co/FHZJxl4, info: https://t.co/rv7b57I https://t.co/FHZJxl4 https://t.co/rv7b57I  LifeLetters, Julia (@lifeletterj) August 8, 2011 August 8, 2011   Since Olive Garden is a corporate sponsor of Planned Parenthood, I think they should serve unlimited breadsticks in the waiting room.  Liza (@thelizakate) October 5, 2011 October 5, 2011   Examples of the rumor concerning Olive Garden and Planned Parenthood were abundant, but tracking a definitive source documenting its claim was another matter entirely. Many people who repeated it cited a March 2012 "boycott list" published on the anti-abortion web site Life News, but that list offered zilch in the way of any proof that Olive Garden (or any of the other companies listed on it) actually supported Planned Parenthood. What's more, that years-old list didn't even describe how it came to the conclusion that any of the companies it listed currently or previously donated funds to Planned Parenthood. published Other critics cited a 2012 article published on the site XOJane urging its readers to patronize businesses that supported Planned Parenthood, in which Olive Garden was also mentioned. However, that XOJane article cited the 2011 Life News article, which made near-identical claims about companies supporting Planned Parenthood without providing any documentation for them. article The 2011 Life News article included an assertion by anti-abortion group Life Decisions International (LDI) suggesting that companies frequently hide evidence of their donations to Planned Parenthood: We learned early on that corporate leaders will turn to devious methods to continue supporting Planned Parenthood. For example, one corporation had donated $5,000 to the pro-abortion group every year since 1991. After becoming a boycott target, the corporation donated $25,000 and for four years told consumers they do not support Planned Parenthood. Therefore, do not be surprised if a corporation responds that it is no longer supporting Planned Parenthood. Such statements create an unreachable standard of proof for those wishing to verify this type of claim,  suggesting that corporate denials are insufficient evidence while offering no proof of their own assertions. And since the primary purpose of such corporate donations is to generate goodwill by funding worthy causes and organizations, it would make little sense for a business to simultaneously support a given non-profit or charity while publicly denying any such beneficence. Planned Parenthood's Annual Report for 2013 [PDF] is the most recent available and includes no specific mention of any donors. However, Olive Garden's Twitter account has replied to concerned customers about whether or not the company currently or previously supported Planned Parenthood: PDF @MidAmericanGuy We have never donated to them. We focus our giving on helping end hunger. Last yr we gave 3+ MM lbs of food to food banks. @MidAmericanGuy  Olive Garden (@olivegarden) July 22, 2015 July 22, 2015   For those who subscribe to the belief that a company might donate money and lie about it, the non-profit and non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) lists all Planned Parenthood donors as far back as 2010 (before LDI claimed in 2011 and 2012 that Olive Garden was among Planned Parenthood's supporters). In all the available  data listed on CRP's web site, neither Olive Garden nor Darden Restaurants appears among Planned Parenthood donors. Center for Responsive Politics data That list, however, provided an amusing twist concerning tweets calling for a boycott of Olive Garden due to their purported support of Planned Parenthood: While no Darden Restaurants brands appeared on the list, Twitter was slotted at #48 among Planned Parenthood donors.  So to remain ideologically pure, one would need to find an alternative social media site upon which to voice disapproval of Planned Parenthood  after all, those pro-boycott tweets are generating revenue for Twitter, a known supporter of Planned Parenthood. On 23 July 2015, Olive Garden replied to a snopes.com query as to whether the chain (or Darden Restaurants) donated to Planned Parenthood: Neither Olive Garden nor Darden Restaurants has ever donated to Planned Parenthood. Rather, our company strives to make a meaningful difference in the lives of others through programs such as Olive Garden Harvest. Through the Harvest program, every Olive Garden across the country donates fresh, wholesome food to a local food bank on a weekly basis. Last year, Olive Garden donated more than 3 million pounds of food to those in need. Last updated: 23 July 2015 Originally published:  22 July 2015 Who is the woman in a viral photo with former President Bill Clinton? She's a photographer and co-founder of a New York-based modeling agency. But if you pose that question to adherents of a Qanon conspiracy theory, you'll probably get a different answer: She's an associate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and recruits children to come to the billionaire's island. Qanon conspiracy theory So how did this ordinary citizen get mixed up in the world of Q? It started with a single miscaptioned photograph that supposedly showed her on Epstein's private plane with Clinton:   While this appears to be a genuine, unaltered photograph, the conspiracy theorists spreading it get several things wrong about what it shows. Mainly, the photograph wasn't taken on a plane owned by Epstein, who was charged with new sex crimes related to child-sex-trafficking for prostitution in the summer of 2019.  Before we go any further, we should note that the Q conspiracy theory is built on speculation and wild assumptions. The woman has not been implicated in any legal proceedings related to Epstein, and she has not been charged with any crimes herself (Snopes is not identifying her to protect her privacy). Q conspiracy theory Indeed, Miami Herald reporter Julie Brown, who was fundamental in uncovering Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking crimes, told us that she never come across the woman's name during her investigation into Epstein: "I have never run across her name anywhere  and I checked with two people involved in the case for 12 years and they never heard of her. They suspect its BS internet conspiracy shit."  Julie Brown fundamental We also dug through dozens of Q posts, conspiracy primers, Qanon explainers, and 4chan and 8chan threads attempting to connect her to Clinton and Epstein, but we've yet to see any concrete evidence. Instead, we found invented explanations for out-of-context pictures and illogical leaps of faith being accepted as fact.  The above-displayed picture has been online since 2006. It was originally shared with a caption saying it showed Clinton with a 19-year-old college student aboard billionaire venture capitalist Ron Burkle's private plane. It wasn't until several years later (circa 2017) that the "Pizzagate" conspiracy community picked up this picture and started claiming that it showed a woman with Clinton aboard Epstein's plane (popularly dubbed the "Lolita Express"). The fact that this photograph was circulating for more than a decade before it became attached to claims relating to Epstein should immediately raise red flags.  shared billionaire venture capitalist circa 2017 Pizzagate Furthermore, photographs reportedly showing the inside of Epstein's plane don't appear to match with this viral picture. Here's a comparison of the viral Clinton photograph and a picture of Epstein's plane obtained by Radar Online: inside of Epstein's plane Radar Online   While we may be entering dot-connecting territory here, the design on the wall behind Clinton bears a resemblance to a photograph from Business Insider supposedly showing the interior of Canadian businessman Frank Giustra's plane. Giustra and Clinton, like Burkle and Clinton, were frequent travel partners: Canadian businessman frequent travel   Angel Urena, Clinton's spokesperson, also denied that the viral image was taken aboard Epstein's plane: "This photograph was not taken on Epsteins airplane." In addition to misidentifying the location of this photograph, Qanon believers also frequently share this photograph with the claim that the woman was underage at the time the photograph was taken. Again, this is based on pure speculation: speculation   When Gawker first shared this photograph in 2006, the organization claimed it showed a "19-year-old college student." This appears to be accurate. In 2009, The Cut identified the woman as a "22-year-old" in an article about her photography. This would make her approximately 19 in 2006 when the photograph was allegedly snapped.  Clinton did fly on Epstein's plane a number of times. However, the above-displayed photograph does not document one of these trips. This photograph shows Clinton with a young woman aboard a plane more likely owned by either Burkle or Giustra.  number of times While the question of who she is may send conspiracy theorists down a rabbit hole of assumptions and speculation, the real answer is quite simple: She is a photographer and co-founder of New York-based modeling agency who was needlessly thrown into this world of conspiracy because she once appeared in a photograph on a plane with Clinton.  co-founder Rothschild, Mike.  "QAnon is Attacking a Random Woman in a Disturbing and Dangerous Way."
  Daily Dot.  21 March 2019. Rothschild, Mike.  "QAnon is Attacking a Random Woman in a Disturbing and Dangerous Way."
  Daily Dot.  21 March 2019. Ellia, Emma.  "Crying 'Pedophile' is the Oldest Propaganda Trick in the Book."
  Wired.  1 August 2018. Neon Revolt.  "D-Room. DINING ROOMS. HRC +++ + +++++ Unlocked? #QAnon #GreatAwakening."
  7 April 2018. NWO Report.  "Footage Of Abused Children Captured On Jeffrey Epsteins Pedo Island."
  15 April 2018. Radar Online.  "Tour for the First Time: Inside Bill Clinton Pal's 'Lolita Express' - The Pedophile Billionaire's Sex Jet He Flew On 11 Times."
  11 July 2016. Alterman, Eric.  "If Jeffrey Epstein Faces Justice, Itll Be Thanks to a Local Newspaper."
  The Nation.  17 July 2019. Brown, Julie.  "How a Future Trump Cabinet Member Gave a Serial Sex abuser the Deal of a Lifetime."
  Miami Herald.  28 November 2018. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In December 2020, as states certified their election results and confirmed that Democratic candidate Joe Biden had won the U.S. presidential election, President Donald Trump continued to push baseless claims that the election was "rigged," "stolen," or marred with widespread voter fraud. On Dec. 9, Trump furthered this false narrative by claiming on social media that his election loss was an historic oddity: voter fraud claiming  This claim is factually inaccurate and this argument is moot.  Precedent exists for a candidate losing an election while winning both Florida and Ohio. In 1960, Republican candidate Richard Nixon received more votes than his Democratic opponent, John F. Kennedy, in both Ohio and Florida, but still ended up losing the election.  Nixon only managed to secure a total of 219 electoral college votes, while Kennedy won the election with 303 electoral college votes. Here's the electoral college map from the 1960 election: electoral college map   Winning in both Ohio and Florida may increase a person's chances of winning a presidential election, but it is in no way required to do so. In order to secure the presidency, a candidate must win 270 electoral college votes.  Like Nixon, Trump won both Florida and Ohio during the 2020 election, but he fell short of the 270 electoral college votes required to secure the presidency. Trump's electoral college results were slightly better than Nixon's at 232 electoral college votes, but they simply weren't enough compared to Biden's 306.  electoral college results In early June 2016, Facebook users widely shared articles that reported that Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Giorgio Armani jacket to deliver a speech on income inequality. The claim's undercurrent was that Clinton's interest in the plight of middle-class Americans was visibly superficial. Interest in the claim began with a New York Post article that focused not on the jacket, but on Clinton's general wardrobe choices on the campaign trail. Its title referenced the "surprising strategy behind Hillary Clintons designer wardrobe," and the piece began by noting that Clinton's appearance and style have been publicly scrutinized and mocked for decades: Hillary Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement. It was a clear attempt to position herself as an everywoman. But an everywoman she is not  she gave the speech in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani tweed jacket. The polished outfit was a stark contrast to the fashion choices Clinton has made in the past. As first lady, Clinton wore frumpy pastel skirtsuits. As New York senator and secretary of state, she attempted a more serious look, wearing pantsuits in a rainbow of colors  so mocked that they sparked memes. In comparison to Michelle Obama, whos become known as a style icon during her time in the White House and appeared on the cover of Vogue twice, Clinton has never been able to nail down a personal aesthetic that works for her. The article speculated (but didn't confirm) that Clinton paid full price for the clothing and did not wear it on loan from its designers. The paper also suggested that Clinton's fashion choices negatively affected her public perception in the past. The cost of men's suits worn by fellow politicians didn't appear in the article for contrast: Its a marked shift from Clintons 2008 run, when she regularly recycled outfits such as blue-and-tangerine pantsuits from DC-based designer Nina McLemore. But just like Clintons fashion choices of the past, the makeover could turn out to be divisive. On one side will be those who say its an appropriate expense for Clinton, given that shes in the unprecedented position of running for president as a woman  and looking the part is crucial to her success. On the other side are those who will see her spending as being out of touch with her message. Not long after Clinton's 2016 campaign looks were dissected by the Post, a litany of items condensed the article to a single headline:  It's true that the jacket was from Giorgio Armani's collection and bore a list price of $12,495. But on 8 June 2016 the jacket's actual retail price was $7,497, and the jacket can now be had for about one-third of that list price. price jacket The Post speculated that Clinton paid for the clothing out of pocket, but the web site Fashionista in turn said that might not necessarily be the case: The Post also posits that Clinton must be spending her own money on all these clothes, as no designer is taking credit for dressing her as they do with First Lady Obama; with Anna Wintour backing her campaign, it would not be outrageous to think that designers might also be quietly gifting clothing to Clinton. (The Post also attacks Clinton's style by mentioning that Michelle Obama has nabbed the cover of Vogue twice; it would be worth noting that Clinton has her own cover of Vogue, for which she wore Oscar de la Renta.) It's unclear whether Clinton purchased expensive clothing for such major appearances (such as her New York speech in April 2016), and it's possible she was loaned articles of clothing to wear by major designers. Stylists Jennifer Rade and Rebecca Klein of Media Style told CNBC that no matter what Clinton did, she would be criticized for her sartorial choices: CNBC But Clinton is "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't," said Rade. If Clinton were to wear a lower priced wardrobe, she would be criticized for not wearing the same caliber of clothing as her competitors. "It's not appropriate for the forum," Klein said. "She is a presidential candidate. That would be disrespectful. ... She is dressing for the occasion." A June 2014 Associated Press article examined the matter of the contents of White House closets, noting that as an issue, the debate went back at least as far as Mary Todd Lincoln. The outlet noted that some clothing was gifted to Michelle Obama under specific circumstances: article In recent weeks, Mrs. Obama has turned heads with a forest-green Naeem Khan dress [and] shimmered in a silver Marchesa gown ... her flowered shirtdress for a Mother's Day tea at the White House (recycled from an earlier event) hit the just right note for an audience of military moms. It takes money to pull that off, month after month. Those three dresses by themselves could add up to more than $15,000 retail, not to mention accessories such as shoes and jewelry. Is it the taxpayers who foot the bill? No. (Despite what critics say.) Is it Mrs. Obama? Usually, but not always. Does she pay full price? Not likely. Does she ever borrow gowns from designers? No. The financing of the first lady's wardrobe is something that the Obama White House is loath to discuss. It's a subject that has bedeviled presidents and their wives for centuries. First ladies are expected to dress well, but the job doesn't come with a clothing allowance or a salary. Here's how Joanna Rosholm, press secretary to the first lady, explains it: "Mrs. Obama pays for her clothing. For official events of public or historic significance, such as a state visit, the first lady's clothes may be given as a gift by a designer and accepted on behalf of the U.S. government. They are then stored by the National Archives." The claim also included that Ms. Clinton wore the designer piece to "deliver a speech about income inequality." The Post originally reported that "Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement," an opener widely condensed to "a speech about income inequality." But in fact neither claim was accurate; the full text of Clinton's April 2016 New York speech was available online, and the words "income inequality" didn't appear a single time. The wide-ranging speech only briefly touched on a theme of "income inequality," an in a much broader sense than the rumor suggested: full text Now, we all knowwe all know many people who are still hurting. I see it everywhere I go. The Great Recession wiped out jobs, homes, and savings, and a lot of Americans havent yet recovered. But I still believe with all my heart that as another greater Democratic President once said, theres nothing wrong with America that cant be cured by whats right with America. That is, after all, what weve always done. Its who we are. America is a problem-solving nation. And in this campaign, we are setting bold progressive goals backed up by real plans that will improve lives, creating more good jobs that provide dignity and pride in a middle class life, raising wages and reducing inequality, making sure all our kids get a good education no matter what zip code they live in, building ladders of opportunity and empowerment so all of our people can go as far as their hard work and talent will take them. Lets revitalize places that have been left out and left behind, from inner cities to coal country to Indian country. And lets put Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, including our failing water systems like the one in Flint, Michigan. There are many places across our country where children and families are at risk from the water they drink and the air they breathe. Lets combat climate change and make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. Lets take on the challenge of systemic racism, invest in communities of color, and finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. And once and for all, lets guarantee equal pay for women. After the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July 2016, Hillary Clinton's infamous Armani jacket was again negatively compared to the dress worn at the convention by GOP nominee Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka, an item of clothing (from Ivanka's own label) that retails for $158.  Trump's wife Melania, however, opted for a pricier Margot dress by Roksanda, which retails for $2,190 Ivanka label Melania  Benac, Nancy.  "Clothing Allowance Not A Perk For First Ladies' Fashion Needs And Wants."
  Associated Press.  2 June 2014. Bourne, Leah.  "The Surprising Strategy Behind Hillary Clintons Designer Wardrobe."
  New York Post.  5 June 2016. Gorman, Michele.  "Transcript: Hillary Clintons New York Victory Speech."
  Newsweek.  20 April 2016. McCall, Tyler.  "Actually, Hillary Clinton's Jacket Costs $7,497."
  Fashionista.  8 June 2016. Claim:  Ted Cruz said that veterans should start selling cookies in order to raise funds.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2015] There is a meme going around Facebook that Ted Cruz has said that veterans should pay for their care by selling cookies, like the Girl Scouts do. What is the truth?  Origins:  On 6 May 2015, the fake news site National Report published an article reporting that Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz had suggested military veterans should start selling cookies in order to raise funds, the way Girl Scouts do: article During a campaign stop in Iowa on Wednesday, Texas Senator and 2016 GOP Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz made a suggestion that some military veterans may find controversial, if not outright offensive: he believes that the office of Veterans Affairs and the Pentagon should sell cookies to raise funds, a concept he admittedly borrowed from the Girl Scouts of America. Ted Cruz spoke at a town hall event in Des Moines, Iowa Wednesday morning, answering questions from a crowd of approximately 200 to 250 likely voters. One of the attendees, an Iraq War veteran named Dan with a prosthetic leg, asked Senator Cruz what his administration would do to help veterans, while further asking how Cruzs proposed tax cuts would affect the Department of Veterans Affairs. "We need to be innovative if we want to help veterans. We need to be practical and pragmatic. But we also need to remain vigilant with our governments out-of-control spending, and find ways of mitigating expenses wherever possible," Cruz answered. "So we need a president whose willing to tackle the hard issues, and come up with innovative solutions to these problems, head-on." Although the article was initially published by the fake news site National Report, it was later republished on a spoofed web site designed to look like the real USA Today site. This led many people, including actor James Morrison, author John Scalzi, and reporter David Nelson, to believe that the article was real: USA Today James Morrison John Scalzi David Nelson    The National Report is one of many fake news web sites operating on the Internet. The site's disclaimer states that all articles published on  National Report "are fiction and presumably fake news." disclaimer   Last updated:  11 May 2015 During the final presidential debate in Hempstead, N.Y., Barack Obama and John McCain got into an argument about Joe the Plumber. McCain said Joe would get a bigger tax bill under the Obama tax plan. Obama defended himself by saying that 98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000 and would not see a tax increase under the Obama plan. Joe the Plumber is an actual person: Joe Wurzelbacher, who met Obama during a campaign stop a few days before the debate in Toledo, Ohio. I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000, $270,000, $280,000 a year, he told Obama. Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it? Obama said yes, it would --seetheir entire conversation on YouTube-- but Obama defended his tax policy as being good for people who are struggling. It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too, Obama said. During the debate, John McCain mentioned Joe the Plumber at least a dozen times as the kind of small business owner who would pay more taxes under Obama's plans. It's not clear from the exchange just what Joe means when he says the business makes up to $280,000 a year. Is he talking about total revenue? Profits? That's an important point here and it's one that Obama and Joe the Plumber never discussed. Based on Obama's proposals and current tax policy, for Joe's taxes to rise Joe would have to make $250,000 in net profit, after deducting all his expenses: his employees' pay, his supplies, his truck, his fuel costs, and other legitimate business expenses. He'd have to be an extremely successful plumber. In response to McCain's statements during the debate, Obama said only 2 percent of small businesses would be subject to the tax. It seems likely that Obama is right, according to data and an analysis from the experts at the Tax Policy Center. Obama's plan is to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the top two tax brackets. In practice, this means that people with income above $200,000 for single people and $250,000 for couples would see taxes increase. Now what does this mean for small businesses? It's not as easy as you might think to identify small businesses via the tax code. But there are several typical ways that small business owners pay their taxes, usually by declaring business income on their individual tax returns. Many people who declare business income are small businesses, though the group also includes professionals like lawyers, authors, or public speakers. Looking at all the tax filers who report any business income at all, the Tax Policy Center confirms that about 2 percent will see their taxes increase under Obama's plan. In an effort to focus more effectively on small business owners, the Tax Policy Center did an additional analysis where they looked at people who reported business income that accounted for at least 50 percent of their income. This means people who derive a significant living off their business income. In 2007, about 2 percent of those tax filers would have made enough money to see a tax increase under Obama's plans. There is a small bit of uncertainty in the best data available; it includes some people who we would not think of as traditional small business owners. But still, Obama's statement during the debate that 98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000 matches the findings of a respected, non-partisan group of tax analysts. For that reason, we rate Obama's statement True. A few lucky souls in a Gwinnett County city could see their paychecks rise by 50 percent. So how did they become so fortunate, and do they have any openings? Well, they voted themselves the potential raises. Norcross City Council members recently voted 4-1 to increase the pay for their positions from $5,400 a year to $8,100. The mayors pay will rise from $6,900 a year to $10,350. The increases will take effect in January, two months after the next municipal election. WXIA-TV recently did a story about the raises and criticism of the idea. The station reported that Mayor Bucky Johnson said the raises would bring Norcross in line with other liked-sized communities. Johnson told us a councilman made the initial claim. PolitiFact Georgia wondered whether the officials are right. A Norcross official sent us a salary survey of elected officials in 43 cities in metro Atlanta. The annual pay for top elected officials ranged from $147,500 for Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed to Buford City Commission Chairman Phillip Beard, who doesnt receive a salary. Atlanta, which has a population of more than 400,000 residents, isnt necessarily the most appropriate city for such a comparison with Norcross, which had 9,116 residents in the 2010 U.S. census. The city's population rose to an estimated 15,000 residents in 2012 after Norcross an annexation, Johnson said. We looked at cities with similar populations. Since serving on the Norcross City Council is considered a part-time position, our second criteria was finding elected officials who are also part-time. Lilburn, the closest municipality to Norcross, has a part-time City Council and pays its elected officials slightly less than what Norcross approved. The population is slightly higher, nearly 12,000 residents, according to the 2010 U.S. census. That citys mayor makes $5,000 a year and council members are paid an annual salary of $3,500, a Lilburn official told us. Another part-time City Council further east in Gwinnett County, Loganville, offers compensation to its elected officials thats pretty close to Norcross. Loganvilles mayor is paid $12,000 a year while its council members make $6,000 a year. Loganville officials are part-time. The citys population in 2010 was 10,458. We also looked at Doraville, which had 8,330 residents, according to the 2010 U.S. census. The mayor and council members receive annual salaries of $70,000 and $8,400, respectively, city officials say. The council voted in 2011 to cut their annual pay by $6,000 as City Hall grappled with across-the-board budget cuts, The Champion Newspaper reported. For three decades, Doravilles mayor handled the citys daily operations. Residents voted to put a city manager in charge of running Doraville on a daily basis and hired one in February 2012. In all, we looked at 10 cities in the region with populations that seemed reasonably close to Norcross. The average annual mayoral salary was $19,418. The average yearly city council salary was $8,437. The salaries are higher than what Norcross adopted. But only six of those cities have mayoral salaries that are higher than what Norcross passed. Just four of those cities have city council salaries that are more than what Norcross approved. To sum up, Norcross officials claimed the salary increases for its mayor and City Council would put them in line with other liked-sized communities. If you consider the average salaries for 10 similarly sized cities, Norcross officials would still make less than their counterparts. If you examine each of those cities separately, the Norcross officials would make more in some cases and less in other instances. From what weve reviewed, Norcross has a pretty good argument here. The council will be in the middle of other liked-sized communities concerning pay. We rate the claim True. Claim:  The Boy Scouts of America has lost some funding over its refusal to accept homosexuals within its ranks. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Good Morning,As near as I can tell the following is a real concern and not a hoax.  The Boy Scouts need all the support they can get.  The request is to sign a petition in their support in response to the many funding sources that have withdrawn support due to the issue that was ruled on by the Supreme Court. Also many Federal Parks that now will not permit them to use that facility. You can access this issue at the following address. https://www.grassfire.net/index1.asp?CID=2&PID=70471 https://www.grassfire.net/index1.asp?CID=2&PID=70471 They also provide a series of statements of what has happened concerning the removal of support. Thanks for your interest Origins:  The petition quoted above began circulating on the Internet in October 2000.  It calls upon folks to electronically sign a petition in support of the Boy Scouts. (The Boy Scouts of America are not sponsoring this petition; an unrelated entity is housing and administering it.)  The petition (found at the Grassfire site) reads as follows: PETITION TO SUPPORT THE BOY SCOUTS!!As a concerned citizen, I am deeply troubled by the recent attacks which have come against the Boy Scouts simply because the Scouts have taken a stand for faith and moral values. As a private organization, the Boy Scouts has every right to set standards for leadership and morality. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear! I urge you to cease these hostile attacks against one of America's great institutions. Should you sign it? The answer to that depends on two things: What your views on the underlying issues are,  as well as what you think of the validity of online petitions.  We think it's not at all likely any Internet petition (no matter what issue it addresses) will have an appreciable impact on anyone in a position to affect policy. It's too easy to cook up lists of fake names and phony e-mail addresses and festoon a petition with them for anyone charged with gauging public reaction to be tempted to give such documents much weight when it comes time to make a decision. Petitions signed in ink in a variety of different handwritings aren't given all that much consideration in this world; how valid will a computer printout appear? A decision to support this petition should probably be based on what one thinks of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's right to exclude homosexuals from its ranks. The Grassfire petition glosses the question of why support is being sought by saying nothing other than "the Scouts have taken a stand for faith and moral values." This wording leaves those who weren't aware of the core issue in the dark as to what prompted folks to withdraw support from the BSA. We don't find that a fair way to write a petition. In a 5-to-4 opinion handed down on 28 June 2000, the Supreme Court decided that the Boy Scouts of America held the right as a private group to expel scoutmaster James Dale on the basis of his sexual orientation. The court ruled: Having determined that the Boy Scouts is an expressive association and that the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect its expression, we inquire whether the application of New Jersey's public accommodations law [the statute contended in a New Jersey suit involving Dale] to require that the Boy Scouts accept Dale as an assistant scoutmaster runs afoul of the Scouts' freedom of expressive association. We conclude that it does. Grassfire expresses its view of the issues at stake as: This summer, the Scouts won a hard-fought case before the U.S. Supreme Court called Dale v. Scouts. The Supreme Court affirmed the Scouts right to set standards for leadership within their organization. This apparently infuriated the politically correct cultural elites. Almost immediately, the anti-Scout campaign was launched, with the Scouts being branded as intolerant. The standard affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dale vs. Scouts, which recognized the BSA's right to determine how to run its organization, also applies to the groups who would now withhold funding from the Scouts: they too possess the right of association. Some local chapters of the United Way are guided by policies that expressly forbid them from financially supporting groups that practice discrimination. They have discontinued funding of the Boy Scouts of America because their entrenched principles  rule out this association in much the same way the BSA's principles rule out an association with homosexuals. It's the same issue, just the other side of the coin. At this point, only a few chapters of the United Way have withdrawn financial support from the Boy Scouts of America. Some municipalities are also now refusing to allow Scout troops to use municipal sites for camping and rallies. United Way funding to the BSA has not yet been substantially affected, however. A rough estimate of loss of beneficence over this issue places the figure at $500,000 a year out of budget hundreds of times that. (In 1996, for example, United Way funding of the BSA amounted to $83,743,000.)  As to what to make of the core issue behind the petition, it comes down to this: The Boy Scouts uphold their deeply-held beliefs by barring homosexuals from becoming scouts or scoutmasters. That stand, however, impels organizations who have sworn to refuse aid to those who practice discrimination to now recognize the Boy Scouts of America as one of the groups they must turn away. Barbara "one good turn deserves another" Mikkelson Last updated:  15 December 2007    Sources:   Parker, Laura and Guillermo Garcia.  "Boy Scout Troops Lose Funds, Meeting Places."   USA Today.  10 October 2000  (p. A1).     Zernike, Kate.  "Scouts' Successful Ban on Gays is Followed by Loss in Support."   The New York Times.  29 August 2000  (p. A1).