Austin mayoral candidate Mike Martinez takes corporate money.
A supporter of an Austin mayoral candidate declared that another candidate accepts corporate donations--which would be illegal, he did not add. In a July 29, 2014, Facebook post, Eugene Sepulveda of Austin, treasurer for attorney Steve Adlers mayoral campaign, declared Adler isnt taking corp money, PAC money or bundled contributions, meaning money gathered from multiple sources by a single person. Commenting below Sepulvedas post, Austin political consultant Mark Littlefield, who supports City Council member Mike Martinez for mayor, asked: Are other candidates taking corporate money? Sepulveda replied: Mike Martinez takes corporate money. Steve wont. A Martinez backer, Jose Velasquez, asked us to check Sepulvedas claim. We wondered first if perhaps laws have changed dramatically so that Texas candidates may accept corporate donations. Not so, we were reminded, in that Texas adopted its ban on corporate donations to candidates more than a century ago. A September 2013 Texas Ethics Commissionguide for candidates for local officespecified that state law bars contributions to candidates for state and local office from labor unions and most corporations. More recently, Austin lawyer Tim Sorrells, the commissions former general counsel, advised candidates for city office in an April 2, 2014,blog post: In Texas, it is still a felony of the third degree for a corporation or labor organization to contribute directly to a candidate or a candidate committee. We asked Sepulveda, a social entreprenuer and philanthropist, to elaborate on his Facebook statement. By email, he told us: I should have said Mike was taking money from business entities. I was referring to his acceptance of contributions from LLCs as well as PACs and bundlers. LLCs are Limited Liability Companies. My bad for not being more specific, Sepulveda wrote. In another email, he said that when Velasquez asked him about the corporate claim, I used the term corporate generically, even referring him to the documents filed with the city clerk. If I'd been trying to mislead anyone, I certainly wouldn't have pointed them to the candidate-filed reports. Sepulveda, who said he made his Facebook comments as an Adler supporter and not as a spokesman for Adlers campaign, elaborated that according to a campaign-finance filing, Martinez fielded contributions from 13 businesses, which we confirmed from Martinezs July 15, 2014,campaign finance report, which showed the cited contributions ranging from $50 to $350. We noticed the business contributors included several limited liability companies, which prompted us to ask an election-law expert,Trey Trainorof Austin, if such companies can legally give to candidates for local office. By phone, Trainor said LLCs may legally make donations so long as none of their members are corporations. Also by phone, Austin lawyer Ed Shack, who said he has helped Adlers campaign, said the same. Martinez campaign spokesman Nick Hudson told us the campaign earlier confirmed from state records and by contacting each contributor that none of the LLCs giving to Martinezs effort had corporate members. Hudson agreed it would be illegal for Martinez to accept corporate donations. Meanwhile, Sepulveda replied to us that he had since posted a comment on Facebook, below his original claim, stating he should have said Martinez accepted donations from business entities including LLCs rather than corporations. It appeared the afternoon of Aug. 4, 2014. Our ruling Sepulveda said on Facebook that Martinez takes corporate donations. Thats not so. In fact, corporate donations remain forbidden and accepting such could lead to a felony charge. However, any candidate may field contributions from PACs and LLCs (so long as a donor LLC has no corporate members). This advocates claim, which he clarified on Facebook six days later, shakes out as incorrect and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
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. Christmas may be a time for giving, but it's also a time for scams. Internet swindlers attempt to take advantage of people's generosity during the holiday season with a variety of schemes. This is probablywhy some people looked at a request for Christmas cards for an 8-year-old burn victim named Safyre Terry with a skeptical eye. attempt schemes The request was originallyposted to Facebook by Kevin "Snapshot" Clark on 4 December 2015: posted Facebook users who were skeptical about Clark's request must have been a little extra wary when the account disappeared for a few hours on 8 December 2015. But this was not the result of any fraudulent activity:  result Last night Facebook shut my page down 6 hours... probably because of all the Safyre stuff (I was getting 50/minute friend requests! )... anyways, I made a new page BUT now don't need it. Ignore it. Today after I nap from working all night I'm meeting Liz Terry-Dolder and Safyre after she gets outta school at her PO BOX so we can all check her mail TOGETHER! *AND A REPORTER /PHOTOGRAPHER FROM THE SCHENECTADY GAZETTE WILL BE THERE TOO! PSYCHED!!! Liz Terry-Dolder The influx of activity on Clark's page was likely dueto Hulk Hogan's sudden involvement in the project. On 8 December 2015, the wrestler shared Clark's message with his loyal "maniacs": shared Alright maniacs let's make Safyre's Christmas Dream come true! All she wants is Christmas Cards from around the world, but a little extra Christmas magic wouldn't hurt!HH. The outpouring of support for Safyre Terry has been covered by multiple TV stations and news publications. And while a fundraising page has been set up to cover medical bills (anaspect that occasionally sets off the scam alert) this is a legitimate attempt to raise money for a young girl who suffered through a terrible ordeal. stations news publications fundraising On 2 May 2013, Terry survived a fire that killed her father and three siblings: survived Elizabeth Dolder never imagined Safyre Terry's stubborn ways might one day serve the girl well in her battle to stay alive. "She was a stubborn child, but that stubbornness is helping her through this," Dolder said of her niece. "She's going to get through this. I can't lose her, too." The 5-year-old girl, the only child to survive a ferocious house fire in Schenectady during the early morning hours of May 2 that claimed the lives of three of her siblings and her father, remains hospitalized in critical condition with severe burns to her tiny body. On 9 December 2015 Dodler, Terry's sole guardian, sent a thank you message out to all of the people who sent Christmas cards and donations: message BELIEVE BELIEVE BELIEVE She did. When she said she can't wait to fill up the card tree my response was I don't think it's gonna get filled up but I am sure we will get a few more cards. She BELIEVED and ALL of YOU are making it happen. THANK YOU.....FAITH LOVE HOPE TO ALL Subsequent reportsshowedhuge piles of letters and cards: When this all began Sa'fyre wanted 100 Christmas cards. This is her latest delivery. Are you sitting down? I'll wait...Posted by John Gray Fox23 on Monday, December 14, 2015On 15 December 2015, a nonprofit organization called Baking Memories 4 Kids, which uses funds from cookies they sell to send children with life-threatening conditions on free vacations with their families, surprised Safyre with a trip to Walt Disney World.[article-meta] When this all began Sa'fyre wanted 100 Christmas cards. This is her latest delivery. Are you sitting down? I'll wait... Posted by John Gray Fox23 on Monday, December 14, 2015 John Gray Fox23 Monday, December 14, 2015 On 15 December 2015, a nonprofit organization called Baking Memories 4 Kids, which uses funds from cookies they sell to send children with life-threatening conditions on free vacations with their families, surprised Safyre with a trip to Walt Disney World. organization surprised  [article-meta] Weeks after the U.S. Capitol insurrection, reports surfaced claiming that a highly visible member of the right-wing mob  the self-described "QAnon digital soldier" who was photographed shirtless, wearing horns and furs on his head  was abandoning former President Donald Trump as a demagogue. reports QAnon digital soldier For example, a Jan. 29 Vice headline read: "The 'QAnon Shaman' just Flipped On Trump." headline read   The assertion had some truth to it. In an interview with The Associated Press, the lawyer representing the man  Jacob Chansley or "Jake Angeli" of Arizona  said his client's attitude toward the president had changed since the deadly siege, and he was willing to testify in Trump's historic second impeachment. That trial by the U.S. Senate was set to begin the week of Feb. 8 and would either convict or acquit the former president of inciting his supporters to break into the Capitol on Jan. 6 to try to halt a ceremonial vote to affirm the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. halt a ceremonial vote The attorney, Albert Watkins, said he wants senators to hear the perspective of someone who was incited by Trump, according to the Jan. 30 story. The Associated Press continued: Jan. 30 story Watkins said his client was previously 'horrendously smitten' by Mr. Trump but now feels let down after Mr. Trump's refusal to grant Chansley and others who participated in the insurrection a pardon. 'He felt like he was betrayed by the president,' Watkins said. Here is a full list of the people Trump pardoned or commuted during his final hours in office. full list We reached out to Watkins to determine the legitimacy of the news story. In an email, we sent him a link to The Associated Press reporting, asked him if it was indeed accurate, and, if so, inquired why or under what circumstances his party decided to offer Angeli's testimony. He responded in an email message to Snopes: "My client is available if called upon to testify. No statement to the contrary has been made." In other words, it was true to claim that Angeli  who was arrested and charged on Jan. 9 for insurrection-related crimes including civil disorder, obstruction of an official proceeding, and disorderly conduct  was willing to testify in Trump's Senate impeachment trial, which may determine whether Trump can run for political office in the future. Jan. 9 whether However, the nature of Angeli's testimony, should he be asked to speak during the trial, remained unknown as of this writing. "The words of Trump supporters who are accused of participating in the riot may end up being used against him in his impeachment trial," The Associated Press reported, though no evidence existed to determine whether Angeli would indeed share his experience to help senators convict the former president. In sum, while it was true that Angeli was willing to testify at Trump's second impeachment trial, it was not known whether he was preparing to make a statement that would help or hurt the efforts of senators who believe the former president is guilty of inciting the insurrection. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "mixture" of truthful, false, and undetermined information. Numerous allegations of sexual harassment have been made against former film executive Harvey Weinstein recently, which may be why "satirical" web site Freedom Junkshun was inspired to publish a story on 17 October 2017 that painted documentarian Michael Moore in a similar light. According to the site: Fox News reported Monday: While filming anti-gun movie Bowling for Columbine Sarah Slater, who was 16 at the time and on set as an extra, says Moore walked up to her and made multiple passes. "I rejected him every time but he wouldnt take no for an answer, Slater tells Fox. He had me change into this really short skirt and he would just stare. At the end of the day, I was at a vending machine and felt a hand sliding up my thigh." In reality, Fox News reported no such thing. Freedom Junkshun is a long-standing publisher of false information. The site includes this disclaimer: publisher We believe that there is nothing more precious than the mind of an aging conservative. Here we gather a boatload of bullhonkey, works of pure satirical fiction, to give the fist-shakers of the world a reason to hate. Reality is often in the eye of the beholder. You wont find any of it here. Join the fun in the comments on our Facebook page where you too can watch David Hasselhoff running over someones poodle magically transformed into a crime against humanity by Barack Obama or yet another murder the Clintons got away with. However, that did not stop conservative social media users from trying to pass the story off as legitimate:     As is commonplace, other websitesConservative Columns, The Star Chronicle, USA First Information, and Defense Patriotregurgitated the fake story without including a "satirical" disclaimer of their own. In reality, Moore criticized Weinstein in a Facebook post on 13 October 2017, saying: saying: I have intervened on more than one occasion and I have fired men who sexually harass women. Harvey Weinstein knew better than to behave inappropriately toward women in my presence. I'm guessing successful sociopaths like him who get away with it for years are very, very careful not to let the kind of men who would stop them dead cold ever get a glimpse of who they really are. I don't live in Weinstein's Hollywood world and I make documentaries, so I can't speak to the culture he created and seemed to thrive in. I AM the only director that I know of who's actually taken Weinstein to court (for being a thief, which requires a different set of sociopathic skills, but, like sexual harassment, you can probably find them at a few Hollywood studios). All of us (men) must share the responsibility for allowing a society to exist where women do not feel safe. A society where, when they are abused, they are not able to tell their stories without fear of retribution and shame. A society that badgers, blames or scoffs at women when they tell their stories. Or how they tell their stories. Or "how long" it took them. They carry a burden that most of us (men) never have to experience. If you can't empathize with that or understand what they are dealing with, then maybe you're part of the problem. We contacted Moore seeking comment on Freedom Junkshun's "story." Weinstein, the former co-founder of Miramax and the Weinstein Company, has been accused by more than 60 women of sexually harassment or assault in the wake of reports by both the New York Times and the New Yorker this month, detailing a pattern of alleged abuse. both and He was subsequently fired from the Weinstein Company as well as expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Police in London and Los Angeles have opened investigations regarding Weinstein, while New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman is reviewing whether Weinstein committed civil rights violations. London Angeles reviewing Kantor, Jodi and Megan Twohey.  "Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades."
  The New York Times.  5 October 2017. Farrow, Ronan.  "From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein's Accusers Tell Their Stories."
  The New Yorker.  10 October 2017. Lartey, Jamiles and Kevin Rawlinson.  "Harvey Weinstein: Police in New York and London Investigating Allegations."
  The Guardian.  12 October 2017. Winton, Richard and Victoria Kim.  "Investigation Launched After Actress Tells LAPD She Was Raped by Harvey Weinstein."
  Los Angeles Times.  19 October 2017. Twohey, Megan.  "Weinstein Company Faces Civil Rights Inquiry by New York Attorney General."
  The New York Times.  23 October 2017. Various social media posts circulating in late December 2021 claimed that thanks to coronavirus stimulus legislation known as the American Rescue Plan, U.S. President Joe Biden's administration and Democratic legislators would begin "spying" or "snooping" on users of cash apps like PayPal and Venmo. Here is an example of one such post: example   The truth is, unsurprisingly, more nuanced, but the bottom line is that, contrary to what the above Twitter posts state, the effect of the legislation in question isn't that the Biden administration or Democrats will be "tapping into" or "spying on" bank or cash app accounts. This is a misleading characterization. What the legislation does is significantly lower the threshold for reporting taxable transactions made using cash apps like Venmo, PayPal, or Zelle for goods and services to the IRS. And when you reach that threshold, the app companies will then be required to send a tax form called a 1099-K to both you and the IRS. A 1099-K is, according to PayPal, an "informational tax form that is used to report goods and services payments received by a business or individual in the calendar year." PayPal As of this writing, the current threshold for such reporting is $20,000 and 200 payments in goods and services. Come Jan. 1, 2022, that reporting threshold will drop down to $600. threshold This could have a significant impact on platform users' tax returns. Here's how Bloomberg Tax described how users might experience the change: Bloomberg Tax For example, a model train collector may have paid $5,000 for model train pieces over several years that they now sell for $8,000, and the marketplace that introduced the seller to the buyer and through which the sale took place may charge the seller a total fee of $800. It may cost the model train seller $200 in postage to send the pieces to its buyers. The Form 1099-K that the seller will receive from the TPSO will report $8,000 in gross proceeds paid. However, the sellers taxable gain from that sale would only be $2,000. As a result, collectors and other online sellers will need to keep extensive records of their expenses going forward to avoid over-reporting of income and overpayment of tax. Also, consider the alternativea teenager who walks dogs to earn extra money. If their income in 2022 exceeds $600, their expenses may be limited to the fees charged by the website that connects them to pet owners, but they will owe income taxand possibly self-employment taxon the income they earn. According to PayPal, which owns Venmo, the change doesn't affect people who use the apps for personal transactions, like paying a friend back for your share of dinner, gifts, or chipping in for trips. PayPal also states that its app allows users to categorize their own transactions as personal versus rendering payment for "goods and services." PayPal Business Users on Cash Apps Will Begin Receiving Tax Forms. Heres What You Need to Know. WJHL | Tri-Cities News & Weather, 14 Oct. 2021, https://www.wjhl.com/news/business-users-on-cash-apps-to-begin-receiving-tax-forms-what-you-need-to-know/. Pflieger, Deborah. "New Form 1099 Reporting Coming in 2022," Bloomberg Tax, 15 Dec. 2021, https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/new-form-1099-reporting-coming-in-2022. New U.S. Tax Reporting Requirements: Your Questions Answered. PayPal Newsroom, 4 Nov. 2021, https://newsroom.paypal-corp.com/2021-11-04-New-US-Tax-Reporting-Requirements-Your-Questions-Answered. "PayPal and Venmo Taxes: What You Need to Know About P2P Platforms." TurboTax, 27 Nov. 2021, https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/self-employment-taxes/paypal-and-venmo-taxes-what-you-need-to-know-about-p2p-platforms/L5DNjOUM1. Twenty-three years into his Senate tenure, Wisconsins Herb Kohl hasnt announced whether he will seek another six-year term in 2012.But as Republicansstep up their criticismof him, Kohl is making crystal clear his disdain for the kind of rough-and-tumble campaign environment that almost surely would be part of another campaign.Compared to his last couple races when Kohl used his massive personal fortune to vanquish underfunded opponents with soft-sell TV ads, it would be a new environment for the senator who owns the Milwaukee Bucks and built the Kohls department and grocery store chains.Inremarks to reportersin Madison on April 28, 2011, Kohl ruminated about the state of todays campaigns. He said people dont like anybody in public life because of venomous attacks and sniping among congressional members, something he said he engages in hardly at all.Then he got specific: Ive been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning. And I dont get into any personal jousts with other people in public life. But thats just my style.So has Kohl really avoided any negative campaigning?Thats quite a claim in this age of mud-slinging and aggressive campaign tactics. We decided to check it out.Of course, it would be impossible to track down every campaign statement Kohl made since 1988 and copies of decades-old TV ads. So we focused our look-back to media descriptions of TV ads, debates and the candidates strategies in his four races. We also talked to the people who should know best: several of his former opponents or their aides, Kohls campaign staff, and a longtime political reporter.Kohl has of course benefited from negative attacks launched by groups supporting his campaigns, but he spoke only of his own campaigns conduct, so well limit our review to that.One more note before we begin: Because there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes negative campaigning, we asked Team Kohl what exactly he meant by his claim.Sen. Kohl has said that he believes campaigning is about telling the people of Wisconsin what hes done and what he plans to do, not tearing down his opponent or telling people not to vote for them, Kohl press secretary Lynn Becker said. He has not been deliberately malicious or factually dishonest in his campaigns or while serving in public office.Indeed, his two most recent opponents said there was no negative campaigning in their contests -- and had high praise for Kohl.He never did anything negative in his campaign. Hell have the job as long as he wants the job, said John Gillespie, founder of Rawhide Boys Ranch, who lost to Kohl in 2000.Say hi to Herb if you talk to him. Tell him I owe him a dinner, said Robert Lorge, Kohls 2006 rival.Fair enough. Those were landslide wins.What about the earlier contests?1988:Kohl was a surprise entrant in the Democratic primary, winning the nomination comfortably over former Gov. Tony Earl, Ed Garvey and Doug La Follette. Hefrustrated hisrivalsby limiting his debate participation and spending millions on TV ads.At the time,Earls media consultant David Axelrod chargedthat Kohls popular slogan -- Nobodys Senator But Yours -- was an implicit negative attack. It implied that candidates who -- unlike Kohl -- have to raise most of their campaign money are beholden to donors, said Axelrod, who later went on to help a guy named Barack Obama get elected president.Earlattacked Kohl as uninformed and error-prone, prompting Kohl campaign aide Bill Christofferson to call Earl desperate and guilty of misrepresentation.Insiders on both sides agree that Kohl ran no attack ads in the primary -- and none in the very tight general election that saw Republican state legislator Susan Engeleiterclose the gap to just a fewpointswith a series of ads targeting Kohl in the closing weeks.Engeleiter herself told us she has nothing but positive recollections of a pretty cordial campaign. She also praised Kohls dealing with her when she later was confirmed as administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration.La Follette and Garvey say today that they wouldnt call Kohls primary race negative. Regarding Kohls slogan, La Follette agreed with Kohl aide Christofferson, who said:  Herb Kohl was talking about himself, not anyone else, when he promised to be 'nobody's senator but yours. 'Indeed, Kohl explicitly used his positive campaign ads as a selling point, and called his victory a blow against negative campaigning.1994:In his first re-election campaign, Kohl wasted little timeaggressively portraying Republican opponent Robert Welch, a state lawmaker from Redgranite, as an extreme conservative and flip-flopper. At an early debate, he cited Welchs no-exceptions stance against abortion and his vow never to vote for a tax hike as extreme. According to media accounts, he did not explain the flip-flop charge.Afterwards, Welch told reporters Kohl was nastier than I expected.Later, after Welch attempted to tie Kohl to President Clinton, Kohl launched arare TV ad that focused on an opponentby name. Another followed. The ads accused Welch of distorting Kohls record. One said that fellow Republicans had criticized Welchs tactics -- something deemed misleading in aMilwaukee Journal fact check.The exchange led Welch to accuse Kohl of running a multimillion dollar mudslinging campaign. Kohl said it was Welch who went negative.The rhetoric heated up. At one point in the race, after Welch accused Kohl of religion bashing, Kohl spokesman Jeffrey Gillis said that  Welch's attack again shows that he'll say or do anything to get elected.So, that seems like quite a bit of snarling.Looking back, though, Welchs campaign manager Mike Maxwell doesnt have strong opinions about the back and forth.I dont know that Kohl was particularly negative through that election, he told us. He didnt recall the distort ad that Kohl ran. He did say that some might consider the extreme charge a negative attack.Kohl, Maxwell recalled, just had overwhelming resources and then he signed (Bucks first round draft choice Glenn Robinson) six days before the election. (We could not reach Welch for comment).Kenneth Lamke, a Milwaukee Sentinel reporter who covered the 1994 race, offered the strongest opinion we heard on whether Kohl went negative against Welch. He says yes.Lamke said the extreme charge by Kohl was within bounds but uncharacteristic of Herb. Lamke viewed the attack as unprovoked and an exaggeration; Gillis, the Kohl aide, said it was a response to the drumbeat of criticism of Kohl during the Republican primary. Lamke, we should note, asked us to describe his personal politics as leans Republican.We asked several political scientists to characterize the language of the Kohl ad. They reacted cautiously because we could not provide the ad itself, just direct quotes from it in media accounts. That makes it impossible to fully judge the tone. Vanderbilt professor John Geer, an author of a much-cited book on negative campaigning, said it sounded like a tame response ad -- not the kind of classic negative ad the public doesnt like. Darrell West, of the Brookings Institution, agreed. UW-Madisons Ken Goldstein said Kohls ad met the academic research definition of negative because it focused on Welch, not Kohl. The test of whether it was unfair is whether it was accurate, he said. So Kohls campaigns have been remarkably low-confrontation affairs, with the most notable exception being 1994, the first -- and perhaps only -- time Kohl aired TV spots going after an opponent.So how does Kohl fare on his statement that he has never campaigned negatively?Clearly, Kohl has spent the vast bulk of his time and money on upbeat, positive ads. Even his opponents agree strongly with that -- one even wants to buy him dinner.The only ad that pops up as arguably negative is the 1994 distort spot against Welch. It drew some critical attention, but is viewed as a pretty tame response ad. Beyond that, Kohls campaigns have engaged in some labeling and name calling. And Kohls aggressive 1994 portrayal of Welch as an extremist was arguably negative.Kohl is mostly on target here, with some minor exceptions.Mostly True. On 27 February 2016, the World News Daily Report web site published an article positing that a retired postman had fathered more than 1,300 illegitimate children: An 87-year-old former postman has been proven to have fathered over 1,300 illegitimate children after a private investigator hired by a Tennessee family discovered the shocking truth. Contraception wasnt very popular in those days, he told local reporters in his defense. I have nothing to be ashamed of. The 60s were the good old days and I did a great Johnny Cash impression which played out real good with the ladies, he explained. Some even thought I was Johnny Cash for real, he recalls laughingly. I dont know if they really believed it or if they were trying to convince themselves, but who was I to say no to a quickie? he acknowledged. There was no truth to thisstory, which originated with World News Daily Report (WNDR), a fake news site that does not publish factual stories (as noted in their disclaimer): WNDR assumes however all responsibility for thesatiricalnature of its articles and for the fictional nature oftheir content. All characters appearing in the articlesin this website  even those based on real people  areentirely fictionalandany resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purelya miracle. In addition to the disclaimer, thefake news story about a postman's fathering 1,300 illegitimate children was given away as fiction because it featured two unrelated images that were lifted (like all of WNDR's photographs) from other sites:   The first image, which purportedly depicts the prolific postman, actually shows a 97-year-old World War II veteran. The second image, which supposedly captures the reporter who uncovered the story, is actually picture of David Stockman, the budget director during the Reagan administration. shows picture One claim that has often been repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump is that he rebuilt a military that was "totally depleted" by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump's grievance is based on a grain of truth  military spending was reduced during Obama's second term  but Trump's statements on the matter have combined distorted facts with outright falsehoods. The way Trump tells it, the United States military was in a complete shambles when he took office. Over the years, Trump has made a variety of statements in order to perpetuate this notion.  In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said: "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition." said This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell). not true In addition, Trump falsely claimed in August 2018, as he was signing the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, that the military had not received any money for years and years. Trump said: "Weve been trying to get money. They never gave us money for the military for years and years. And it was depleted." This, again, is false. In fact, approximately $600 billion was spent on the military in the year before Trump took office.  President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nations Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment: speech "Weve invested the $2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world, and its all made here, right in the USA.  This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump -- comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during was about $3.3. trillion during his first term and $2.7 trillion during his second term -- but only of a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget.  not true While Trump has told several falsehoods about how Obama supposedly "totally depleted" the military, there is some general truth to the idea, as overall military spending was reduced during the Obama administration. However, there is a bit more nuance to this issue than is often heard on the campaign trail.  While the military was leaner during the Obama years, the Obama administration still spent trillions on national defense.  Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and what administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military. military budget covers sequestration The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration.  green book The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart is the United States budget for National Defense.  Center for Strategic and International Studies   Trump's military budget for his first four years (approximately $2.9 trillion) was more robust than Obama's budget during his last four years (approximately $2.7 trillion). However, it was smaller than Obama's budget during his first four years (approximately $3.3 trillion). The Marine Corps Times writes: writes The military the president inherited from Obama was not depleted or facing a massive readiness crisis, which resulted from massive underfunding in the Obama years. In fact, according to Gen. David Petraeus ,who commanded our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and also headed the CIA, and Michael OHanlon, there was no readiness crisis and in 2016, the year Trump was elected, the state of our military was awesome. Nor was the defense budget seriously underfunded in the Obama years. If one controls for inflation, in FY2021 dollars Obama spent $3.3 trillion in his first term compared with the $2.9 trillion under Trump. Moreover, while defense spending did decline slightly in Obamas second term, it still amounted to $2.7 trillion, about $200 million, or 7 percent less, than Trumps first-term budget. However, this decline was a result of the Budget Control Act or sequestration (BCA,) which was instituted by his current chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was then a congressman from South Carolina. While the military certainly had ammunition during the Obama administration, and while the Obama administration certainly spent a few trillion dollars more than nothing on national defenses, several aspects of the military were truly reduced during Obama's administration. Todd Harrison, the director of Defense Budget Analysis for CSIS, examined Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017, the budget that would be in place when Trump took office, and found that "nearly every measure of force structure  the number of brigades, aircraft, ships and subs, marine battalions, and end strength  [was] smaller than when the [post 9/11] buildup began." However, this "smaller force consumes a budget more than 50 percent larger in real terms than before 9/11. The military is spending more for a smaller force."  examined Obama's budget Though it is certainly not accurate to say that the military did not receive any funding during the Obama administration, there was truly a reduction in spending. Two major factors resulted in reduced spending. First, congress placed restrictions on military spending in 2011 in an attempt to reduce the national deficit. And second, the Obama administration started to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's how The New York Times explained the impact of the congressional sequester on military spending: explained In 2011, in response to a debt ceiling crisis, lawmakers reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the next decade. In addition to limits on domestic spending, limits were placed on the Pentagons base budget, but not its wartime spending. Congress increased spending caps by $32 billion in 2013 and $40 billion in 2015, referred to by budget watchers as partial sequester relief. In February, the cap was blown off entirely, when Mr. Trump signed a budget deal that raised it by $165 billion over two years. Effectively, that ended the sequester without repealing the original law. From 2012 to 2017, the Pentagons annual budget had decreased as a percent of the economy. But it still hovered around $600 billion  a far cry from no money at all. Qiu, Linda.  "Trump Goes for Broke on Claim Military Received No Money Before His Watch. (Hes Still Wrong.)."
  The New York Times.  13 August 2018. Plinkington, Ed.  "Barack Obama Sets Out Plans for Leaner Military in Historic Strategy Shift." 
 The Guardian.  5 January 2012. Ewing, Philip.  "Fact Check: Has President Obama 'Depleted' The Military?"
  NPR.  29 August 2016. Korb, Lawrence.  "Trumps Misleading Claims on Military Readiness and Veteran Care."
  Marine Corps Times.  14 September 2020. Harrison, Todd.  "Analysis of the FY 2017 Defense Budget."
  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  April 2016. Robertson, Lori.  "Trumps False Military Equipment Claim.'"
  FactCheck.org.  2 July 2020. Claim:  After a young man slips his date an aphrodisiac and leaves her alone in the car, he returns to find that she has impaled herself on the stick shift handle in a sexual frenzy. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 1995] A friend at work says that when she was in high school a story circulated about a boy who wanted to sleep with his girlfriend, but she was unwilling. After he complained to his friends about this state of affairs, someone suggested he try Spanish fly.   He agrees and gets some. They go to a drive-in movie, and he slips the spanish fly in her drink. A while passes and nothing happens, so he gets out to go to the bathroom.  While he is out of the car she, in a fit of sexual frustration, impales herself on the gearshift.  Variations:   Where the boy takes his date varies: usually either a drive-in movie or parking at some secluded spot.   The reason why the boy leaves his date alone for a few minutes also varies: generally either to go to the bathroom or to visit to the drive-in's snack bar.  Sometimes one (or both) of the participants is a well-known community member.   Origins:  The   legend that Spanish fly (or cantharides, a substance made from dried beetle remains) is a powerful aphrodisiac has been around for hundreds of years.  The substance irritates the urogenital tract and produces an itching sensation in sensitive membranes, a feeling that allegedly increases a woman's desire for intercourse.  No medical or scientific test has ever shown Spanish fly to be deserving of its reputation as an aphrodisiac, however, and its indiscriminate use can result in serious medical problems. The legend of the girl and the gearshift lever has been circulating since at least the early 1950s, and has probably been in existence as long as automobiles have been around.  The legend combines the male fantasy of a "love potion" that turns any female into a willing sexual partner with a sort of medical "sorcerer's apprentice" horror story about the perils of the uninitiated attempting to cast powerful spells they can't control. Perhaps the latter point plays on the adolescent male fear of the (perceived) strength and irrationality of the female sex drive; the idea that even a "nice" girl is really a ravening sexual beast just waiting to be awakened, and that if you do arouse this primal lust, it will be more than you can handle. (Female hypersexuality is a common feature of adolescent sex legends.) There may also an element of the sexist "cain't leave 'em alone fer a minute" in the fact that the boy leaves, then comes back to find his girlfriend sexually active. The unfortunate young man then experiences the ultimate American male nightmare: being cuckolded by his own automobile. Last updated:  22 March 2011  The Choking Doberman    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good To Be .   New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 123-124). Too Good To Be     Nordenberg, Tamar.  "The Facts About Aphrodisiacs."   FDA Consumer.  January 1996  (p. 10).     Reuben, David.  Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex.   New York: David McKay Company, 1970  (p. 73).    Rodgers, Joann.  "The Enduring Myth of Aphrodisiacs."   The Los Angeles Times.  14 December 1987  (p. B4). In July 2020, an advertisement for U.S. President Donald Trump's 2020 reelection campaign started appearing on Trump's official Facebook page showing a comparison of two images entitled "Public Safety" and "Chaos and Violence." The "Public Safety" image showed Trump surrounded presumably by various members of law enforcement, while the "Chaos and Violence" image supposedly showed protesters beating up an American police officer: started appearing Shortly after this ad started running, media outlets such as the BBC noticed that the image on the right was not taken in 2020, and that it didn't show an incident from the United States. This image was actually taken in 2014, and shows a clash between police and protesters in Ukraine.   BBC The BBC reported: A post by Donald Trump's official Facebook account purports to show violence in the US but is in fact of an event in another country. The advert shows one image of Mr Trump in a calm setting talking to police officers beside another of a security official being surrounded by protesters, saying: "Public safety vs chaos and violence". However, the image is a photo from a pro-democracy protest in Ukraine in 2014. This photograph was taken by photographer Mstyslav Chernov in February 2014 during a protest in Kyiv, Ukraine. The image is available via Wikipedia under a "Creative Commons" license. The terms for this photograph state that it is free to use  as long as the photographer is given proper credit. But the advertisement on Trump's Facebook page offered no mention of the photographer.  Wikipedia Creative Commons Here's an uncropped version of Chernov's photograph:   Chernov confirmed to Business Insider that the Trump ad did indeed use his photograph from Ukraine in 2014. Chernov went on to say that the only way to combat this sort of deception is through "education and media literacy." Business Insider Chernov said: "Photography has always been used to manipulate public opinion. And with the rise of social media and the rise of populism, this is happening even more," he said. "The only way to combat this is through education and media literacy. When people learn to independently distinguish truth from lies, then the number of manipulations will decrease." Giles, Christopher.  "Facebook: Trump Posts Misleading Ad Using Ukraine Photo."
  BBC.  22 July 2020. Jankowicz, Mia.  "A New Trump Campaign Ad Depicting a Police Officer Being Attacked by Protesters is Actually a 2014 Photo of Pro-Democracy Protests in Ukraine."
  Business Insider.  22 July 2020.