Says Russ Feingolds campaign is powered by small-dollar contributions like ours.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont loves to boast about hisindependence from super PACsand billionaires, saying his campaign relies on the support of small donors. Recently, the Democratic presidential hopeful extended his small donor claim to Russ Feingold. Sanders sent out a news release May 26, 2016 that said he would be raising money for Feingold, a former U.S. senator who is aiming to unseat Republican incumbent Ron Johnson in a rematch of their 2010 contest. Sanders also sent an email to his national fundraising list. We are going to have to elect candidates up and down the ballot who recognize that it is too late for establishment politics and economics, Sanders wrote. Candidates like my friend, former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold. Sanders continued: Russ led the fight with me to make the Affordable Care Act much stronger in 2009. He voted against the USA PATRIOT Act and the war in Iraq. He authored and passed landmark campaign finance reform legislation and his campaign is powered by small-dollar contributions like ours. That last accolade caught our eyes. Sanderss record-breakinglevelof small-contribution support has been well noted. We wondered if small donors were also powering Feingolds campaign. Sanders backup Typically, small donors are considered those who give $200 or less over an election cycle. Having a lot of small-dollar contributions can indicate strong grassroots support and an effective online fundraising effort. When asked to back up the statement, Sanders team sent us to anews releaseissued by Feingolds campaign in April 2016. At that time, the release said, 30,000 Wisconsinites had contributed to Feingolds campaign with money coming in from each of the states 72 counties. The release also claimed 96 percent of all contributions in the first quarter were $100 or less. The problem for fact-checkers -- it cannot be independently verified. PolitiFact National explored the issue when presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said our campaign depends on small donations for the majority of our support. Her team provided similar information, saying more than 50 percent of the money raised by the campaign came from online grassroots donations, with 98 percent smaller than $250. Until an individual donor surpasses $200 in contributions, their funds are unitemized on campaign disclosure reports. So the number of donors who give less than $200 is unknown. Numbers reported to the Federal Elections Commission provided weak support for Clintons statement, PolitiFact National found. And small donors accounted for less than 20 percent of Clintons total donations, according to those figures. The claim was ratedMostly False. FEC numbers The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance research group, tracks money given to candidates from individuals and PACs, as well as those self-financing their campaigns and money contributed from other means. Sanders profile on the groups web site reports that 99 percent of his campaigns more than $200 million in funds has come from individual contributions (as opposed, for instance, to political action committees). Of that, 62 percent -- or more than $129 million -- was from contributions of $200 or less. The other part comes from large individual contributions of up to $2,700. So what about Sanders Wisconsin pal, Feingold? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Feingold has raised more than $10 million in the race against Johnson. Like Sanders, an overwhelming amount of his funds, 93 percent, come from individual contributions. But, Feingold has received a larger share of donations from large donors than small ones. Feingold received 52 percent of his overall funds from people who gave more than $200. Another 41 percent came from small individual donors. He also received about $600,000 from PAC contributions. So, the majority of Sanders funding -- 62 percent -- comes from these small donors while 41 percent of Feingolds funding came from small donors. The phrase powered by, of course, is open to some interpretation. We took a look at candidates in other competitive Senate races across the country this election cycle. Most candidates received less than 20 percent of all campaign funds from small donors. Some approached 30 percent -- still far below the proportion of funds Feingold has raised from small donors. So, while Feingold is not above 50 percent -- and does not match Sanders level -- we feel like the claim is generally on target. It doesnt factor into this claim, but as a point of reference, Johnson has raised just less than $12 million. Individuals donated about 80 percent of that money. He has gotten a far greater share of his contributions from big spenders -- those donating between $200 and $2,700 this election cycle. Just 15 percent of his funds come people who donate less than $200, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Our rating Sanders said in a fundraising letter that Feingolds campaign is powered by small-dollar contributions like ours. Both the presidential and congressional hopefuls have received the majority of their support from individual donors. While small donors have played a role in Feingolds funding, theyre not as integral as Sanders small donors. We rate the claim Mostly True.
In December 2020, TikTok user @philupmecup posted a short clip, viewed more than 1 million times, that included the text "An 18 year old can legally adopt a 17 year old," along with the caption "Let that sink in": posted   Among the tens of thousands of comments posted in response to the video were some that appeared to come from teenagers excited or amused by the prospect of high school friends adopting one another once one of them turns 18.  teenagers In reality, the restrictions and protocols implemented by adoption agencies make it unlikely that one teenager could adopt another one, except in rare and tragic circumstances. However, on a purely legal, hypothetical basis, most U.S. states do not prohibit such an arrangement. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Mixture." Adoption regulations vary from country to country, but the TikTok user who posted the claim lives in the United States, so our assessment will focus on the legal status quo there, which also varies between states. According to a January 2020 report published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Colorado, Delaware, Oklahoma, and American Samoa explicitly prohibit adoption by anyone under 21 years old; and Georgia and Idaho set the minimum age at 25. report In seven states (California, Georgia, Nevada, New Jersey, South Dakota, and Utah) as well as the Northern Mariana Islands, the adopting parent must be at least 10 years older than the adoptive child, while in Puerto Rico that minimum age gap is 14 years, and in Idaho, it is 15 years.  In California, an exception exists to the age-gap requirement, namely where a court rules the adoption is in everyone's best interests and is done by a "stepparent, or by a sister, brother, aunt, uncle, or first cousin and, if that person is married, by that person and that person's spouse."  exception Similarly, Colorado law allows for an exception to the minimum age of 21, subject to court approval, and in South Dakota, the 10-year age gap can be waived where "the court finds the adoption of the child by the adult person in the best interest of the child." exception waived This means that only 10 out of the 50 states, whose combined population represents 79 million (or around 24% of the country's total population) legally prohibit an 18-year-old from adopting a 17-year-old  and in three of those states, loopholes exist which could, in principle, allow such an arrangement.  That's not to say that any 18-year-old could adopt any 17-year-old. Almost all states have some other legal prerequisites for adoption  in-state residency requirements, consent requirements, and the termination of the biological parents' parental rights. But  all other things being equal  only 10 states have age-specific limitations that would (in almost all cases) prohibit the arrangement in question. In practice, adoption agencies typically impose restrictions, or give preference to certain would-be adoptive parents, based on considerations such as financial stability. This alone would likely rule out the vast majority of 18-year-olds, who are only very rarely independently wealthy or have reliable, sustainable employment which they can balance with a college education and so on.  Another highly relevant consideration here is the time it can take to complete the rigorous procedures required for adopting a child. The California Department of Social Services, for example, advises that adoption agencies often taken between six months and one year to complete their assessment of would-be adoptive parents, and they typically take an additional "one to several months" to actually place the adoptive children with their new parents. Given these time frames, very few scenarios would warrant an 18-year-old's adopting a 17-year-old, when the 17-year-old will become a legal adult anyway, in at most 12 months.  advises 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 September 2020, social media users began circulating a text meme charting the decrease in abortion rates in the U.S. during previous presidential administrations, attributing the greater drop in those rates during Democratic administrations to a difference in approach (i.e., making it illegal vs. making it unnecessary):     As we noted in an earlier article on a similar topic, following the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that protected a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction, the abortion rate rose immediately afterward until it peaked in the 1980s, and it has fairly consistently declined since that peak through presidential administrations of both parties: article Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace.     Although it is true that the abortion rate has experienced greater declines during Democratic administrations than Republican ones, we can't draw any definitive conclusion that, as the meme tries to suggest, this difference is primarily due to varying approaches by the two main political parties. The simple idea presented by the meme has a number of flaws, chief among them that political factors that might influence the abortion rate (e.g., policies, legislation, judicial appointments and rulings) do not neatly conform to presidential terms of office -- what takes place during one administration generally continues to have an effect throughout subsequent administrations. As well, events occurring at state and local levels (not necessarily directly tied to federal actions) can have a substantial impact on the availability and prevalence of abortions. More important, though, is that we cannot definitively determine to what extent political factors influence the abortion rate. As the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion-rights research organization) observed, recent declines in the abortion rate appear to have been driven not primarily by abortion restrictions but by a broader decline in pregnancies: observed Abortion restrictions target either individuals ability to access the procedure (such as by imposing coercive waiting periods and counseling requirements) or providers ability to offer it (such as through unnecessary and intentionally burdensome regulations). Any one of these restrictions could result in some people being forced to continue pregnancies they were seeking to end; this could, in theory, lower the abortion rate. With the available evidence, it is impossible to pinpoint exactly which factors drove recent declines, and to what degree. However, previous Guttmacher analyses have documented that abortion restrictions, while incredibly harmful at an individual level, were not the main driver of national declines in the abortion rate ... Rather, the decline in abortions appears to be part of a broader decline in pregnancies, as evidenced by fewer births over the same period. What's driving that decline in pregnancies, then? We don't know that for sure, either, but likely a combination of social, cultural, economic, medical, and political factors: combination Experts say the decline isnt due to a single cause, but rather a combination of several factors, including changing economics, delays in childbirth by women pursuing jobs and education, the greater availability of contraception, and a decline in teen pregnancies. The trend seen in the United States is also seen in much of the developed world, including Western Europe, said Dr. John Rowe, a professor at Columbia Universitys Mailman School of Public Health. One important factor driving this is the changing roles of women in society, Rowe said. In general women are getting married later in life, he explained. They are leaving the home and launching their families later. [Dr. Helen Kim, an associate professor at Northwestern Universitys Feinberg School of Medicine] said the concept of the ideal family size may be changing. There are shifts where having smaller families is a trend, she added. I cant speak on this as a sociologist, but this is what Ive seen among my peers and colleagues. One of the biggest factors is the decline in teen pregnancies, Rowe said. Thats good news ... And that makes a huge difference to their lives. The Guttmacher Institute posited a similar mix of factors to explain the decline in the abortion rate: Because both abortions and births [have] declined, it is clear that there were fewer pregnancies overall in the United States ... The big question is why. One possible contributing factor is contraceptive access and use. Since 2011, contraception has become more accessible, as most private health insurance plans are now required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket costs. In addition, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and private insurance coverage under the ACA, the proportion of women aged 1544 nationwide who were uninsured dropped more than 40% between 2013 and 2017. There is evidence that use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods -- specifically IUDs and implants -- increased through at least 2014, especially among women in their early 20s, a population that accounts for a significant proportion of all abortions Another possible contributing factor might be a decline in sexual activity. Findings from one national survey suggest a long-term increase in the number of people in the United States -- mostly younger men -- reporting not having sex in the past year. Yet another possibility is that infertility is increasing in the United States, thereby reducing the chances of getting pregnant and subsequently seeking to obtain an abortion. More generally, there are a host of other potential factors that could be driving declines in pregnancy rates, from individuals evolving desires about whether and when to become parents to peoples changing economic and social circumstances. Finally, it is possible that ... there could have been an increase in self-managed abortions happening outside of medical facilities, which the census would be unable to capture. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also offered a combination of potential explanations for lower abortion rates: combination Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. As we stated four years ago, "causation between the presidency and abortion rates [is] difficult to demonstrate in any case, because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement." That observation remains true today. Carroll, Linda and Shamard Charles, M.D.  "Americans Aren't Making Enough Babies to Replace Ourselves."
  NBC News.  13 January 2019. Nash, Elizabeth and Joerg Dreweke.  "The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver."
  Guttmacher Institute.  18 September 2019. Kasprak, Alex.  "Abortion Rates Fall During Democratic Administrations and Rise During Republican Ones."
  Snopes.com.  11 November 2016. FACT CHECK: Was Nick Hanauer's 2012 TED Talk about income inequality banned because it was "too politically controversial" to release?  Claim: A 2012 TED Talk video featuring wealthy entrepreneur Nick Hanauer speaking on the subject of income inequality was banned because it was deemed "too politically controversial."    Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015]   There are several articles that claim "TED Banned This Billionaire For Exposing Capitalism's Biggest Lie" or some similar wording. This is about the speech of Nick Hanauer, apparently a Seattle venture capitalist. The language of this sensational claim makes me suspicious, as does the unlikelihood of the claim. Is it true? What is the source of the rumour?   Origins: On 1 March 2012, Seattle-based venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer participated in the global conference series of "TED Talks." The video of his six-minute talk, widely circulated since its release, captured him addressing a spate of issues pertaining to income inequality and capitalism from the perspective of a very wealthy individual:  Not long after Hanauer's March 2012 talk was filmed, rumors began circulating claiming that TED had deliberately suppressed the clip due to its potentially offensive (to rich people) nature. On 16 May 2012, National Journal published an article contending that TED's organizers had quashed the groundbreaking talk because its content was simply too controversial to release, an odd assertion considering the 2011 emergence of a well-known (and widely reported upon) protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street): article Occupy Wall Street TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer  the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com  to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic  specifically, Hanauer's contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America's true "job creators." "We've had it backward for the last 30 years," he said. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich." You can't find that speech online. TED officials told Hanauer initially they were eager to distribute it. "I want to put this talk out into the world!" one of them wrote him in an e-mail in late April. But early this month they changed course, telling Hanauer that his remarks were too "political" and too controversial for posting. In the years since 2012, Hanauer's TED clip has paradoxically been viewed millions of times while remaining the focus of articles describing it as described as "banned," "too controversial," or the speech TED "doesn't want you to see." While it's difficult to determine the accuracy of statements about its online availability in March 2012, the clip clearly became widely available and was frequently viewed on sharing sites such as YouTube shortly thereafter, and it has remained popular ever since. But in 2015, many social media users continued to assert Hanauer's talk was banned: Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer  Rich People Dont Create Jobs (VIDEO) #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48 #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48  Hannah Kennison (@HannahKennison1) July 6, 2015 July 6, 2015   Nick Hanauer on His Banned TED Talk & Why the Middle Class are the Job Creators https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ  Jonathan Goodman (@GoodmanJonathan) July 20, 2015 July 20, 2015   if you are interested in #economics, then it is worth listeningBanned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer 'Rich people don't... https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g #economics https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g  Mudassar Bashir (@mb62020) June 15, 2015 June 15, 2015   Nick Hanauer too politically controversial: rich people dont create jobs, consumers do - via Reese Jones https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz  VritTV (@Verite_TV) June 11, 2015 June 11, 2015   In late May 2012 a contributor to TED's forums specifically asked why Hanauer's talk had been "banned," prompting a lengthy discussion during the course of which individuals affiliated with TED linked to a statement issued by TED curator Chris Anderson on why Hanauer's talk had not been promoted.     The service by which Anderson published the explanation (Posterous) shuttered in April 2013, taking Anderson's remarks with it. However, a cached version revealed the date (17 May 2012), title ("TED and inequality: The real story"), and content of Anderson's rebuttal. asked shuttered version Anderson opened by stating that "TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us." He described an ensuing "firestorm of outrage" on sites including Reddit and Huffington Post, wherein TED was "accused of being cowards ... in the pay of our corporate partners ... [and] the despicable puppets of the Republican party." Anderson's account of the decision not to release Hanauer's talk differed dramatically from the circulating rumors: Here's what actually happened. At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. (The talk is explicitly attacking what he calls an article of faith for Republicans. He criticizes Democrats too, but only for not also attacking this idea more often.) And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance, such as the apparent ruling out of entrepreneurial initiative as a root cause of job creation. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings  some enthusiastic, others critical. At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media. We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets. As Anderson noted, income inequality was the subject of at least one [uncensored] TED Talk video in 2011. video Much of the rumor regarding Nick Hanauer's purportedly banned TED Talk segment hinged upon the differing assertions made by TED and Nick Hanauer at the time of the controversy in 2012. However, Anderson's claims (that TED curators are tasked with promoting only the most impactful clips) weren't implausible or suggestive of a coverup. It would be difficult to determine whether Hanauer or anyone working on his behalf threatened a public relations offensive, but TED maintained that quality and not content was behind the decision not to feature the video (which clearly was not "banned" from public view but was simply not promoted by TED). Since the time of the initial debate over whether or why the TED talk was "banned," the clip has been distributed both by TED and other outlets and widely viewed by a large online audience. In August 2014, Hanauer returned for a TED Talk titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming." titled While it's true that TED opted not to promote Hanauer's initial appearance (during which he discussed income inequality) his segment was not banned, and the organization cited his lack of substantive content alongside his primary reliance on partisan ideas as the reason it was not curated alongside other featured TED Talks. At no point during the immediate controversy did TED appear to deny the existence of the video, remove it from the Internet, interfere with its distribution, or otherwise thwart the ideas advocated by Hanauer from spreading. The group simply chose initially not to promote the clip (as they do for a large number of TED Talks) in favor of other content selected by their curators. Last updated:  27July 2015 Originally published: 27July 2015 Speaking at an event in Chicago earlier this month, U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., was talking tax policy and the economy when he pointed to lackluster economic growth that occurred under former President Barack Obama. The past (Obama) administration was the first administration that never had a whole year of 3 percent growth, Roskam said during a March 6speechat the City Club of Chicago. Its an oft-cited figure Republicans tend to throw around to highlight the weak economic recovery throughout Obamas presidency, but does the data back it up? A familiar claim Roskams claim lacks some specifics, particularly the type of growth and time frame he was referring to in his speech. David Pasch, the Wheaton Republicans communications director, provided a link to data compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis showing both the annual and quarterly percentage change in real gross domestic product, or GDP, which is the total value of goods and services provided in the country. While annual figures on GDP growth date back to the Herbert Hoover administration and the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, the federal government did not start trackingquarterly growthuntil 1947. Considering the time frame for which this annual data is available, its safe to assume Roskam was referring to economic growth since the Hoover administration. In fact, Roskams claim is quite similar to a statement Donald Trump made during a campaign speech in October, which wasfact-checkedby our colleague Joshua Gillin at PolitiFact Florida. As was the case with Trumps claim, Roskam is right when he says that year-over-year GDP growth never topped 3 percent while Obama was in office. But as Princeton University economist Alan Blinder told PolitiFact at the time, looking at annual data can be misleading because it doesnt provide context or account for historical factors that affect economic growth, such as recessions and global crises. For example, Hoover came into office on the cusp of the Great Depression, and Obama took over during the tail end of the Great Recession and amid instability in the Middle East. Thats one of the main reasons why economists suggest looking at the percentage change in GDP by quarters, rather than growth in a single calendar year. When PolitiFact Florida fact-checked Trump saying Obama was the first president in modern history not to have a single year of 3 percent growth, data for the third and fourth quarters of 2016 was not yet available. But now it is. GDP growth in 2016 and the Obama years According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the percentage change in GDP growth during the third and fourth quarters of the last year of Obamas final term was 3.5 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively, resulting in an average growth rate of 1.6 percent for 2016. That was down 1 percentage point from 2015 when GDP grew by 2.6 percent, which marked the best year for average growth under Obama. Typically, economic growth in the first quarter of a new presidency is attributed to the previous administration, meaning former President George W. Bush gets credit for the 5.4 percent contraction in the economy during the first three months of 2009. As for the remainder of Obamas time in office, quarterly GDP growth averaged 2.0 percent, or 1.5 percent when averaging out annual figures. But if the data is used to compare one quarter to the same quarter from a year ago, there were two periods during Obamas tenure in which growth exceeded 3 percent. Between the third quarters of 2009 and 2010, GDP growth was about 3.1 percent; and between the first quarters of 2014 and 2015, the economy grew by 3.3 percent, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. With the way Roskam refers to growth, however, Obama indeed was the first president who did not achieve more than 3 percent growth in GDP. Average growth under Bush Sr., was 2.1 percent; 3.9 percent for Bill Clinton; 2.3 percent for George H.W. Bush; and 3.5 percent for Ronald Reagan. The highest annual growth on record occurred in 1942 during the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, when GDP grew by a staggering 18.9 percent as the United States entered World War II and ramped up production following the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Our ruling Roskam said the Obama administration was the first administration that never had a whole year of 3 percent growth. While Roskams claim is accurate when based on annual GDP growth figures between 2009 and 2016, there are other ways to look at the data, such as from one quarter to the same in the previous year. Doing so reveals economic growth has surpassed 3 percent during two periods of Obamas presidency. We rate Roskams claim Mostly True. Concerns about the countrys food supply are weighing heavily on many Americans as baby formula is hard to find and international conflict threatens commodities like wheat in some parts of the world. A social media post invoking those fears harks back to U.S. history to suggest that the government is purposely creating food shortages. In 1873 the U.S. government killed 1.5 million buffalo to starve Native Americans so they would become more dependent on the government, read one such May 11post. Fast forward to today, and the government is creating food shortages to achieve exactly the SAME goal! It was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more aboutour partnership with Facebook.) The post has a point about why so many buffalo were killed in the late 1800s, but it makes an unfounded comparison: Theres no evidence the U.S. government is currently creating food shortages. In the mid-1800s, more than 30 million buffalo roamed the plains; by the end of the 19th century, only afew hundredremained. The rapid population decline was due to overhunting, which was welcomed by U.S. officials as a way toforceNative Americans in the Great Plains region tosettle on reservations. Andrew Isenberg, an American history professor at the University of Kansas and theauthorof The Destruction of the Bison, said white hunters in the late 1800s likely killed far more than the 1.5 million buffalo mentioned in the post  a fact federal authorities knew. The U.S. federal government did not actively destroy bison in order to starve Indigenous people in the Great Plains into submission, he said. But the federal government stood by and refused to prevent the wasteful destruction of bison by private white hunters and then welcomed the result of the near extinction of the species: Indigenous peoples surrender to the reservation system. Bison skulls await industrial processing in Michigan in 1892. (Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library and Wikimedia Commons) Gen. William Sherman, who commanded the U.S. Army in the region, negotiated treaties with groups of Indigenous peoples in the Great Plains in the late 1860s, Isenberg said. The U.S. agreed to allow Native Americans to occupy large parts of the Great Plains so long as the buffalo may range thereon in such numbers as to justify the chase. Not long after those treaties were negotiated, Isenberg said, Sherman wrote a letter saying, it will not be long before all of the buffalos are extinct near and between the railroads. By 1873, welcoming the extinction of buffalo to suppress Indigenous peoples had become de facto government policy, Isenberg said. In an 1872 report, Interior Secretary Columbus Delanowrotethat the buffalos disappearance must operate largely in favor of our efforts to confine the Indians to smaller areas, and compel them to abandon their nomadic customs, and establish themselves in permanent homes. Although the decimation of the buffalo population was ultimately the work of private hunters, the idea that destroying bison was a way to force the surrender of Indigenous people in the Great Plains was quite overt, Isenberg said. While there is concern about global food shortages because of the war in Ukraine, experts told PolitiFact in April that the U.S. isless vulnerableto food shortages than poorer nations that rely largely on imports. The U.S. food system has a good level of self-sufficiency, so currently, it is hard to imagine empty shelves in grocery stores, said Ohio State University agricultural economist Seungki Lee. And though claims have surfaced suggesting the U.S. government isintentionallycreatingfood shortages, we have found there is no evidence to back that up. A number of factors havecontributed tothe U.S. baby formula shortage, including arecallby a major U.S. manufacturer, existing supply chainissuesassociated with the COVID-19 pandemic and thehighlyconcentratednature of the formula market. View of almost empty baby formula shelves at a Duane Reade in New York City on May 11, 2022. (AP) A post claimed that the U.S. governments inaction over buffalo killing that harmed Native American populations in the 1800s shows it is now is creating food shortages so that Americans are more dependent on the government. Millions of buffalo were killed by hunters in the late 1800s as part of a de facto government policy meant to force Native Americans in the Great Plains to abandon their customs and accept the reservation system. This racist history, however, does not prove that the U.S. government is currently creating food shortages to force government dependence. We found no evidence to support that claim. We rate this claim False. RELATED:Ask PolitiFact: What can parents do if they cant find baby formula in stores? Readers should beware of scam emails that claim a "$500 Venmo balance needs confirmation." Venmo is a mobile payment service that allows people to pay and request funds through its app and website. mobile payment service The fraudulent emails appeared to be phishing attempts that led to endless survey offers so that the people behind the scams could perhaps make affiliate commission dollars.  We advise readers to never click any of the links in these scam emails.  Such emails are littered with errors like "congratulation" and "to opt-out, please click her anytime." $500 Venmo balance needs confirmation This message was sent from a trusted sender. venmo Congratulation $500.00 has been sent to (email address) Complete the necessary steps to finish the process ACCEPT MONEY this email was sent for (email address) To opt-out, please click her anytime. The scam emails led to surveys that promised big rewards on the enigmawinds.com website. Its domain name was registered on Nov. 29, 2021, less than three weeks before we filed this report. The pages also featured a fake timer at the bottom of the screen, much like readers might see in infomercials on television.  Don't waste your time on these surveys.  One message with the "$500 Venmo balance needs confirmation" subject line that we reviewed showed that it came from an email address ending with "globalcbdusa.com." According to its domain registration information, the website was first created after June 2021. The mention of "CBD" in the website's name wasn't surprising considering other CBD-related scams we've covered in the past. other CBD-related scams Legitimate emails from Venmo end with "@venmo.com," not "@globalcbdusa.com." For example, emails from venmo@venmo.com and venmo@email.venmo.com can be trusted. Venmo.com dedicated a page to common scams that have targeted its users: page We want your experience on Venmo to be as fun and effortless as possible. Heres some information to help you avoid common scams. Remember: You should only use Venmo to buy or sell goods or services when in accordance with our User Agreement. User Agreement Fake Prize/Cash Reward Details: Scammer may send a text message or email with a link saying that you have won money from Venmo. The link may ask you to sign into your Venmo account, or to enter information about your Venmo account. How to avoid this scam: @Venmo @VenmoSupport @Venmo @Venmo If you receive one of these "$500 Venmo balance needs confirmation" emails, the best course of action is to delete it. If you think you've spotted a scam or been the victim of one, call the Federal Trade Commission at 1-877-FTC-HELP. Federal Trade Commission Claim:  A 2013 immigration reform bill provides young people with free cars to transport them to their jobs.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2013] BREAKING: Immigration bill now includes free cars (at tax payer expense) for young people to help them get to work! LIKE if you agree: The Senate should vote no on this Gang of 8 immigration bill! Call and let them know what you think! (888) 978-3134  Fox News reported that the riders made to the 2013 Immigration bill now in the Senate that Bernie Sanders has added a provision for free cars, motorcycles or scooters for "young people to use as transportation" to jobs.  This was reported by  Laura Ingraham on Fox and Friends on June 25, 2013.  Is there any truth to this report.  I can not find a copy of the 1,190 page 2013 immigration bill to read it my self Origins:  In April 2013, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act ("a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes") was introduced to the U.S. Senate as S.744, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York.  In June 2013 two Republican senators, Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota, drafted an amendment to that bill (commonly known as the Hoeven-Corker Amendment) in order to, in the words of Senator Corker, "mandate an unprecedented surge of security at the southern border, implement tough interior enforcement to curb de facto amnesty, and help prevent abuse of federal benefits": S.744 Hoeven-Corker Amendment "The Hoeven-Corker amendment takes big and important steps on the immigration issue that matters most: border security," Senator Lamar Alexander said. "It would double the number of agents on the southwest border, construct 700 miles of new or upgraded fencing and spend $3.2 billion on new security technology that was perfected in Iraq and Afghanistan." The Hoeven-Corker amendment would add 20,000 border patrol agents, enough to allow putting one agent every 1,000 feet along the U.S. southwest border. The border patrol agents, fencing and security technology plan would have to be in place before anyone under the immigration legislation's "Registered Provisional Immigrant" program would be allowed to apply for legal permanent residency, otherwise known as a green card. Democratic-affiliated Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has been outspokenly critical of the potential economic effects of S.744, arguing that the bill would "allow college students from around the world to take jobs that young Americans would otherwise perform."  In response, he drafted a  Youth Jobs Plan that would "provide $1.5 billion over two years for states and local communities to help find jobs for more than 400,000 16- to 24-year-olds who were hard hit by the Wall Street-caused recession."  That job plan was incorporated into the Hoeven-Corker Amendment under a heading of "TITLE V  JOBS FOR YOUTH." Youth Jobs Plan TITLE V The claim that the immigration bill includes a provision granting "free cars, motorcycles or scooters for young people" stems from a very broad, speculative interpretation of one sentence in the jobs plan portion of the Hoeven-Corker Amendment which generally directs how the job plan funds should be used: IN GENERAL. The funds made available under this section shall be used  (A) to provide summer employment opportunities for low-income youth, with direct linkages to academic and occupational learning, and may be used to provide supportive services, such as transportation or child care, that is necessary to enable the participation of such youth in the opportunities; and  (B) to provide year-round employment opportunities, which may be combined with other activities authorized under section 129 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 17 2854), to low-income youth. As stated, the bill does not contain a specific provision to provide "free cars for young people to help them get to work."  It includes a clause allowing that youth job program funds may be used to "provide supportive services, such as transportation" to low-income youth taking part in summer employment opportunities.  Whether and how that provision would be applied in practice is purely speculative at this point and could vary widely from place to place, potentially ranging anywhere from arranging carpools and subsidizing bus fare to buying, leasing, or renting motor vehicles to be temporarily utilized in ferrying job program participants to work.  But the government isn't going to be buying up cars and turning ownership of them over to young people engaged in summer job programs.       Last updated:  26 June 2013 As the premiere of the horror flick Jeepers Creepers 3 approached in September 2017, many posted messages on social media to remind potential moviegoers about director Victor Salva's criminal history: messages   Salva was convicted in 1988 on charges related to the sexual molestation of 12-year-old actor Nathan Forrest Winters during the filming of his movie Clownhouse. Salva served 15 months in prison and finished his parole in 1992. The Associated Press reported at the time: served Salva confessed to having oral sex with Winters in 1987 while directing him in "Clownhouse," a low-budget horror film about three boys terrorized by circus clowns. Salva, sentenced to three years in state prison, served 15 months and completed parole in 1992. Salva is a registered sex offender: registered offender   said Victor Salva, a former child-care worker who impressed Hollywood filmmakers with his early cinematic work, was sentenced to three years in state prison in 1988 for molesting a 12-year-old boy who had acted in two of his films. Salva videotaped one of the encounters. [...] The revelations came as the now 20-year-old victim, Nathan Winters of Concord, Calif., picketed a screening of "Powder" on Monday night in Westwood. Winters passed out leaflets urging the public to boycott the movie and said his family and friends would continue protesting after the film debuts Friday on more than 1,500 screens nationwide. Winters said he was "in awe" that Disney would even make a movie with Salva. "I can't believe [Salva] is allowed to work with children again," Winters said. "He should not be allowed around children ever again." At the time, Salva released a statement saying "How deeply I regret my actions." It continued:  statement I paid for my mistakes dearly. Now, nearly 10 years later, I am excited about my work as a film maker and look forward to continuing to make a positive contribution to our society. Caravan Pictures, the company that made Powder for Disney, also released a statement: "He paid for his crime, he paid his debt to society," said Roger Birnbaum, whose Caravan Pictures made "Powder" for Disney and reportedly didn't know of Salva's record until the film was midway through production. "What happened eight years ago has nothing to do with this movie." More recently, Salva's past hindered the casting of Jeepers Creepers 3 when the web site Breakdown Services removed the casting call for a 13-year-old character (to be played by an 18-year-old) upon learning of Salva's crime.  casting Winters never starred in another movie.  movie Welkos, Robert.  "Disney Movie's Director a Convicted Child Molester."
 LA Times.   25 October 1995. Guthmann, Edward.  "Concord Molest Victim Confronts `Powder' Director / Actor protests at Disney Screening."
 SF Gate.   25 October 1995. Goldstein, Patrick.  "Victor Salva's Horror Stories."
 LA Times.   11 June 2006. In June 2022, many people expressed outrage over the claim that Disney had supposedly "canceled" actor Tim Allen, who voiced the character "Buzz Lightyear" in the original "Toy Story" movies. According to the rumor, the entertainment giant refused to cast Allen in the 2022 "Lightyear" movie due to his conservative political views.  Disney Here's how the conservative news outlet "Townhall" framed the issue: "Townhall" framed the issue  While it was true that actor Chris Evans  not Allen  was voicing Buzz in "Lightyear," Disney had not cut ties with Allen. In fact, Allen and Disney are currently working together on another project, as of this writing. Furthermore, there were several story reasons (not political ones) for a new actor to voice "Buzz Lightyear" in the 2022 movie. Chief among them: "Lightyear" focused on a fictional human character, while the "Toy Story" movies featured a fictional "Buzz Lightyear" toy. Allen In 1995, Allen debuted as the voice behind "Buzz Lightyear," an action-figure toy that came to life when humans left the room, in the Pixar movie "Toy Story." In the Pixar universe, this action-figure toy was based on a character from an action movie. Pixar's 2022 film "Lightyear" is that in-universe action movie. Sound a little confusing? In the opening moments of "Lightyear," the premise of the movie is explained like this: "In 1995, Andy got a toy. That toy is from his favorite movie. This is that movie." premise of the movie is explained like this In other words, the movie "Lightyear" did not feature the fictional toy that Allen voiced in the original "Toy Story" movies. Evans was voicing a new iteration of the "Buzz Lightyear" character. "Lightyear" producer Galyn Susman explained: explained 'Tim Allen is Buzz Lightyear the toy, and hes the embodiment of Buzz Lightyear the toy. We werent making a Toy Story movie. Were making Buzz Lightyears movie, the Lightyear movie. And so first and foremost, we just needed to have a different person playing that Lightyear, separate from the toy.' In the real world, we can compare this scenario to Batman action figures and Batman movie stars. Actor Robert Pattinson played the caped crusader in the 2022 movie "The Batman," but that doesn't mean he provided the voice for the latest "Batman" toys on store shelves. In fact, while Allen's co-star Tom Hanks voiced the character of "Woody" in the "Toy Story" movies, it was actually Hanks' brother, Jim, who provided the voice of "Woody" for the real-world action figures.  Robert Pattinson played the caped crusader in the 2022 movie "The Batman," actually Hanks' brother, Jim, who provided the voice of "Woody" for the real-world action figures  Allen provided the voice for some "Buzz Lightyear" toys, but so have a number of other entertainers  such as actor Pat Fraley. Allen provided the voice Fraley said in a 2019 interview: said in a 2019 interview So, for nine years it was one of the most lucrative roles I ever did. I did all the toys and there were a lot of them. Thats how that went down the pike. Eventually, they got rid of me and I figured they found someone better than me. I was a close match but not perfect. No, my replacement wasnt better than me but I bet he was cheaper. So, why didnt Tim Allen do the voice of Buzz Lightyear for all of those toys instead? Tim was too busy. He had a show on TV and was doing movies. He had Home Improvement and those Santa Clause movies at the time. Home Improvement Santa Clause We reached out to Disney to see if Allen was voicing new "Buzz Lightyear" toys, and we will update this article accordingly.  As this rumor circulated on social media, many people claimed that Allen was the victim of "cancel culture" and that Disney was refusing to work with the actor due to his conservative politics. But that wasn't the case. In fact, as of this writing, Allen and Disney were working together on an upcoming television series based on "The Santa Clause" movies.  conservative politics working together  Here's a synopsis of the new Disney+ series: synopsis of the new Disney+ series In the Disney+ series, Scott Calvin is on the brink of his 65th birthday and realizing that he cant be Santa forever. Hes starting to lose a step in his Santa duties, and more importantly, hes got a family who could benefit from a life in the normal world, especially his two kids who have grown up at the Pole. With a lot of elves, children, and family to please, Scott sets out to find a suitable replacement Santa while preparing his family for a new adventure in a life south of the pole. While Allen did not voice Buzz Lightyear in the 2022 "Lightyear" movie, there was no evidence that Disney refused him the role, or ended its working relationship with Allen, because of his political beliefs. Rather, the film featured a version of the fictional character that was different from the original "Buzz Lightyear" figure in the "Toy Story" films, and a producer said they "needed to have a different person" playing the 2022 movie's version. Also, Allen was working with Disney on a separate project. Buzz Lightyear Voices (Toy Story). Behind The Voice Actors, https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/characters/Toy-Story/Buzz-Lightyear/. Accessed 16 June 2022. Weary Lightyear Director Tries Once Again to Explain How Real Lightyear Is or Isnt. The A.V. Club, 16 June 2022, https://www.avclub.com/lightyear-director-angus-maclane-describes-how-real-the-1849068927. Cavacini, Michael. Legendary Pat Fraley Tells All. Michael Cavacini, 1 Nov. 2019, https://michaelcavacini.com/2019/11/01/legendary-pat-fraley-tells-all/. Johnson, Allen. Why Lightyear Director Recast Iconic Role of Buzz with Chris Evans for New Pixar Film. Datebook SF Chronicle, https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/movies-tv/why-lightyear-director-recast-iconic-role-of-buzz-with-chris-evans-for-new-pixar-film. Accessed 16 June 2022. Lightyear Creator Breaks Down Why Tim Allen Wasnt Asked To Return In New Pixar Movie - The Illuminerdi. 15 June 2022, https://www.theilluminerdi.com/2022/06/15/lightyear-why-tim-allen-recast/. Scott, A. O. Lightyear Review: Infinite Buzz. The New York Times, 14 June 2022. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/movies/lightyear-review.html. Tim Allen Returns to the Red Suit for The Santa Clause, a Limited Series for Disney+. D23, 14 Jan. 2022, https://d23.com/just-announced-tim-allen-returns-to-the-red-suit-for-the-santa-clause-a-limited-series-for-disney/. The Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, was envisioned as a giant pot of money the federal government could use to buy toxic assets, the mortgage-backed investments that triggered the nation's financial crisis. The idea was to buy the bad assets so banks would be in better shape to do more lending. That was the original vision of Henry Paulson, the Bush administration's treasury secretary and one of the architects of the plan. He won quick approval from Congress in early October 2008. But Paulson changed his strategy. Instead of using the early TARP money to buy the toxic assets, he decided to use it to invest in banks. That, Paulson said, would get them to resume lending. Since then, critics have questioned whether the TARP money has been wisely spent. They have criticized TARP investments in banks that did not appear to be in serious trouble, and said it was unwise to spend $25 billion on the auto industry. In his column on March 24, 2009, conservative writer George Will took aim at a variety of recent acts by Congress and the Obama administration. He described members of Congress as braying yahoos and said the Obama administration had invited private sector investors to become business partners with the capricious and increasingly anticonstitutional government. This latest plan to unfreeze the financial system came almost half a year after Congress shoveled $700 billion into the Troubled Assets Relief Program, $325 billion of which has been spent without purchasing any toxic assets. We had a vague recollection that TARP spending had been broadened at some point, but we wondered if Will was correct that such a large amount had been spent without buying the assets that were the original focus of the program. (Indeed, the program was named after them, creating a metaphorical acronym that suggested it was a temporary protection from storms.) A quick history: In early October, with fears that the economy was on the brink of collapse, Congress approved the $700 billion Paulson wanted, and President George W. Bush signed the measure into law. As we noted above, the early vision was to buy toxic assets. But just 10 days later, Paulson and the Bush administration changed the game plan. Instead of buying toxic assets, they said they would buy stock in American banks to put them on sound footing so they could resume lending. Today we are taking decisive actions to protect the U.S. economy, Paulson said on Oct. 14. We regret having to take these actions. Today's actions are not what we ever wanted to do  but today's actions are what we must do to restore confidence to our financial system. Criticism grew. Some said Paulson had gotten too much leeway to spend the money. Congress began harrumphing and holding hearings, and oversight groups known as SIGTARP (the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program) and COP (the Congressional Oversight Panel) began to scrutinize the spending. (A quick aside: The financial crisis has spawned some of coolest acronyms this side of the Pentagon, making it possible for Treasury officials to utter sentences like, COP and SIGTARP have examined the TARP but haven't yet focused on the P-PIP.) The $325 billion cited by Will comes from the March 11 testimony by Neel Kashkari, the interim assistant secretary for financial stability who directs the TARP, before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Asked about the status of the program and how much more would be needed, Kashkari said, We've deployed about 325 billion cash dollars out the door. And at that point, none of the money had been spent on buying toxic assets, according to the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional research group, and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an independent group tracking spending on TARP and other stimulus programs on its siteStimulus Watch. We should note that since that testimony, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has unveiled his proposal for buying the toxic assets, which would be partly paid for by a portion of the TARP money. But that wasn't the case when Will's column was published, so we find his claim to be True.