Is this roster of modifications made to Social Security throughout the years authentic?
The Social Security system has been a contentious political issue ever since it was proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and implemented in 1935. Arguments regarding how the system should be used, administered, and funded  and even whether it should exist at all  have been the subject of debate for many decades now: Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2005] SOCIAL SECURITY:Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary, 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program, 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month  and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following: Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate. Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A: The Democratic Party. Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S. Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? MY FAVORITE :A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it! Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year! Variations: A version of this piece circulated via e-mail in 2005 opened with the following introduction: Dear Friends:Many years ago in Seattle, two wonderful neighbors, Elliott and Patty Roosevelt came to my home to swim on a regular basis. They were a great couple full of laughter and stories that today I continue to marvel at. Both are now deceased, but their stories remain. During the years of our friendship we had many, many discussions about his parents (President Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt) and how his father and mother never intended for the Social Security and Welfare programs to turn out the way they are today. Elliott used to say that if his mother returned to earth and saw what the politicians had done to their programs she would have burned all of them in hell. Here is a story I received today regarding the Social Security Program and I immediately thought of Elliott's comments. Hope you will read this and think about it. In this vein, the above-quoted item seeks to enumerate (and assign blame for) alterations to Social Security that have supposedly betrayed the intent of the system as originally conceived back in the 1930s. Most of the entries contained therein, however, are inaccurate regarding what changes were made and/or who was responsible for making them: . . . participation in the Program would be completely voluntary There was no provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 (nor has there ever been any provision) for the payment of Social Security payroll taxes (now commonly known as FICA, from an acronym for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act) to be voluntary. Since the inception of the Social Security program, the law has required that payroll taxes for persons working at jobs covered by Social Security "shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid." FICA It is true that Social Security provisions originally applied only to "workers in commerce and industry (except railroads) under age 65 in the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii, and on American vessels," and thus those who worked in fields not designated as "commerce and industry" (e.g., government workers, farm workers, doctors, lawyers) neither paid into the Social Security fund nor received benefits from it. Nearly all of those exemptions have been since phased out: applied . . . participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program Social Security taxes were never limited to the first $1,400 of annual income, nor was there any provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 to permanently fix the tax rate at 1%. The Social Security Act of 1935 set the original rate at 1% of the first $3,000 of annual income, with provisions to gradually increase that rate to 3% over the next twelve years: increase 1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum.(2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall 1 1/2 per centum.(3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2 per centum.(4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 1/2 per centum.(5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum. These figures have been adjusted many times over the years. Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, as of 2005 participants pay 6.2% of the first $90,000 of their income (with their employers contributing a like sum) into what is commonly known as OASDI (from an acronym for Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance, the official name of the basic retirement benefits portion of the Social Security program). . . . the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that Social Security payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions: For the purposes of the income tax imposed by Title I of the Revenue Act of 1934 or by any Act of Congress in substitution therefor, the tax imposed by section 801 shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year in which such tax is deducted from his wages. Social Security payroll taxes have never been deductible from income for tax purposes, either when the program was originally instituted or at any time since.  . . . the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the "general operating fund." However, whether the Social Security Trust Fund can truly be said to be "independent" is problematic. The Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may only "be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government," such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education). The government "pays back" this money when the Social Security program redeems the bonds, but critics of the program contend Social Security will eventually fall into deficit by 2018, and the Treasury won't have the necessary cash on hand to redeem the bonds and pay back the fund. As the Social Security and Medicare Trustees themselves noted in their 2005 Annual Report: Annual Report In 2005 the Social Security tax income surplus is estimated to be more than offset by the shortfall in tax and premium income for Medicare, resulting in a small overall cash shortfall that must be covered by transfers from general fund revenues. The combined shortfall is projected to grow each year such that by 2017 net revenue flows from the general fund to the trust funds will total $515 billion, or 2.3 percent of GDP. Since neither the interest paid on the Treasury bonds held in the HI [Hospital Insurance] and OASDI Trust Funds, nor their redemption, provides any net new income to the Treasury, the full amount of the required Treasury payments to these trust funds must be financed by some combination of increased taxation, increased Federal borrowing and debt, or a reduction in other government expenditures. Thus, these payments along with the 75 percent general fund revenue contributions to SMI will add greatly to pressures on Federal general fund revenues much sooner than is generally appreciated. A somewhat dated but detailed article about how the Social Security trust funds are invested can be found here. here . . . the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income It is true that Social Security benefits were not originally considered taxable income. However, that status was not due to any promise or act on the part of President Roosevelt, nor was it specified in the Social Security Act (or any other law); it was the result of a series of rulings by the Treasury Department in 1938 and 1941 that excluded Social Security benefits from federal income taxation. Those rulings were overriden by amendments to the Social Security act enacted in 1983. rulings amendments Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate. As noted above, the monies paid into the Social Security trust have never been "put into the general fund." The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund's inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself: above altered Beginning in fiscal year 1969, Social Security and other Federal programs that operate through trust funds were counted officially in the budget. This was done administratively by President Johnson. At the time Congress did not have a budget-making process. In 1974 Congress adopted procedures for setting budget goals through passage of annual budget resolutions. Like the budgets prepared by the President, these resolutions were to reflect a "unified" budget that included trust fund programs such as Social Security in the budget totals.Beginning in the late 1970s, Social Security faced financial problems, and over a period of time legislation was enacted to restore the financial health of the program. However, because the Federal budget deficit remained large, interest in reducing Social Security spending continued. This routine consideration of Social Security constraints led to concerns that cuts in Social Security were being proposed for budgetary purposes rather than programmatic ones. In response to this concern, a series of measures were enacted in 1983, 1985, and 1987 making the program a more distinct part of the budget and permitting Congressional floor objections (points of order) to be raised against budget bills containing Social Security changes. This method of accounting for the Social Security Trust Fund in the federal budget was reversed in 1990. Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?A: The Democratic Party. As noted above, Social Security withholding has never been deductible from income for tax purposes. The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that monies paid into Social Security via payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions. above Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?A: The Democratic Party. Prior to 1984, income derived from Social Security benefits was exempt from taxation. Amendments to the Social Security Act passed by Congress in 1983 allowed for 50% of Social Security benefits to be considered taxable income for taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds. Responsibility for this change cannot fairly be assigned to either political party. The idea originated with a proposal issued by the bipartisan Greenspan Commission, which had been created by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The amendments were passed by a House of Representatives in which the Democrats held a clear majority of the seats (296-166), but the proposed amendments received "Yea" votes from members of both parties, and they were signed into law by President Reagan. Greenspan Commission Q: Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S. In 1993, Congress passed legislation that increased the percentage of Social Security benefits subject to taxation from 50% to 85%. As with the 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act, this increase applied only to taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds. This change to Social Security was but one element of the massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) introduced in Congress in 1993. OBRA was barely passed by a 218-216 vote in the House of Representatives, with not a single Republican voting in favor of it (although 41 Democrats voted against it). Likewise, the Senate vote on OBRA was deadlocked at 50-50 (again, with not a single Republican voting in favor of it, although 6 Democrats voted against it) until Vice-President Al Gore (a Democrat) cast the deciding "Yea" vote. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton (also a Democrat). OBRA vote vote Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! No one  whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien  is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system. Someone has confused Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI)  the latter is a federal welfare program "designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income" by providing "cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter." Immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits under certain conditions, but SSI is financed by general revenues and not Social Security taxes. SSI was not enacted by the administration of President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat); it was created and signed into law in 1972, during the administration of President Richard Nixon (a Republican). benefits SSI Additional information:     Riedl, Brian and David John.  "Social Security's Fictitious Trust Fund."   Knight-Ridder Tribune.  10 November 2004.
Around 25 July 2016, various versions of the claim reproduced above began circulating, suggesting that Representative Elijah Cummings incorrectly stated Democrats were responsible for giving black people the right to vote during his 2016 Democratic National Convention speech: speech   The portion most in line with the meme included the following remarks: It was our Democratic party that pushed open the opportunities for me and millions of children across this great country. It was our party that fought for head start and good schools. And made college affordable and championed affirmative actions and school desegregation, that passed Social Security and Medicare, that fought for veterans back home, that fought for the rights of workers and made the dream of home ownership possible for millions of american families. Yes, it still is our Democratic party. Civil rights and voting rights -- and voting rights. As we democrats -- it is we Democrats who fully understand when you take away a person's right to vote, you take away their ability to shape their own destiny. And it was and it is our democratic party that fights for women's rights, gay rights, the LGBTQ rights. Our party understands that black lives matter. Cummings' quote was ambiguous, but he appeared to say that the Democrats "fought" for civil rights and voting rights, a fairly open-ended statement. Many critics held that Cummings' statement was incorrect based on historical fact: The 15th Amendment to the Constitution granted African American men the right to vote by declaring that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Although ratified on February 3, 1870, the promise of the 15th Amendment would not be fully realized for almost a century. Through the use of poll taxes, literacy tests and other means, Southern states were able to effectively disenfranchise African Americans. It would take the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before the majority of African Americans in the South were registered to vote. The meme reproduced above stated that 141 Republicans voted to approve the 15th Amendment, with zero Democrats in favor, 39 no votes, and seven abstentions.  According to the Library of Congress the vote was as follows: voted The House of Representatives passed the 15th Amendment on February 25, 1869, by a vote of 144 to 44 The Senate passed the 15th Amendment on February 26, 1869, by a vote of 39 to 13. The text of the 15th Amendment can be found in the United States Statutes at Large, volume 16, page 346 (15 Stat. 346).Secretary of State Hamilton Fish issued a proclamation certifying the ratification of the 15th Amendment by the states on March 30, 1870. A detailed tally of Senate Vote #586 in January 1869 indicated support by Republicans with 33 "yea" votes, and zero for Democrats: indicated   While the meme was close to accurate in providing tallies by party for votes on the 15th amendment, it was less so with Cummings' remarks. Putting aside the fact it did not mention any changes in party dynamics between the 1940s and 1970s [PDF], it also misconstrued Cummings' statements to suggest that he incorrectly attributed the 15th amendment specifically to Democrats and not Republicans. PDF  C-SPAN.  "Representative Elijah Cummings Delivers Remarks at the Democratic National Convention."
  25 July 2016. PBS.  "Passage Of The Fifteenth Amendment."
  (Undated.) Library of Congress.  "15th Amendment To The Constitution."
  (Undated.) C-SPAN.  "Representative Elijah Cummings Delivers Remarks at the Democratic National Convention."
  25 July 2016. Claim:  President George W. Bush proclaimed, "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." Status:  False. Origins:  Yet another   "George W. Bush is dumb" story has been taken up by those who like their caricatures drawn instark, bold lines. According to scuttlebutt that emerged in the British press in July 2002, President Bush, Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, and France's President Jacques Chirac were discussing economics and, in particular, the decline of the French economy. "The problem with the French," Bush afterwards confided in Blair, "is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." The source was Shirley Williams, also known as the Baroness Williams of Crosby, who claimed "my good friend Tony Blair" had recently regaled her with this anecdote in Brighton.  Lloyd Grove of The Washington Post was unable to reach Baroness Williams to gain her confirmation of the tale, but he did receive a call from Alastair Campbell, Blair's director of communications and strategy. "I can tell you that the prime minister never heard George Bush say that, and he certainly never told Shirley Williams that President Bush did say it," Campbell told The Post. "If she put this in a speech, it must have been a  joke." This is far from the first time Bush has been made the butt of a jibe meant to showcase what some perceive as his less than stellar intellectual abilities. Without straining our memories too hard, we can come up with three other instances we've chronicled on this site. In the summer of 2001, the joke of the moment centered upon a supposed study that had resulted in the ranking of Presidential IQs, with George W. Bush being pegged as the Chief Executive who scraped the bottom of the intelligence barrel. In December 2000 it was a fake Nostradamus quatrain which pontificated that the "village idiot" would win the 2000 Presidential election. And in the spring of 2002, it was the story of Bush's waving at Stevie Wonder that set folks to chortling up their sleeves. Presidential IQs Nostradamus quatrain waving Stories that illustrate this widely believed intellectual shortcoming will always waft after George W. Bush because they seemingly confirm what many already hold as true about this public figure, that he's not the brightest fellow that's ever been. It is human nature to revel in yarns that the hearer at some level agrees with, thus tales of this sort will always fall upon appreciative ears. Barbara "ears of corn" Mikkelson Last updated:  23 September 2007    Sources:   Fitchett, Joseph.  "The Global Class: Word for It."   The International Herald Tribune.  11 July 2002  (p. 18).    Grove, Lloyd.  "The Reliable Source."   The Washington Post.  10 July 2002  (p. C3).    Malvern, Jack.  "Bush and Blair."   The [London] Times.  9 July 2002  (p. 18).    Smith, Liz.  "Stovepipe Dreams."   Newsday.  12 July 2002  (p. A13). On Jan. 15, 2020, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signed the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. The signing ceremony was historic  it was only the third time in U.S. history that a president has been impeached. And, according to critics, the event was bit unusual because Pelosi used multiple pens to sign the documents and then handed the writing utensils out as souvenirs.  A rumor soon started to circulate on social media positing that the pens Pelosi had used had cost an obscene amount of money. One Twitter user, for instance, claimed that each pen Pelosi used cost $2,025. A message on Facebook held that Pelosi had used a total of $15,000 worth of pens to sign these documents. This number was exaggerated even further by another Facebook user who claimed that each pen cost $15,000, and that the signing ceremony used a total of $450,000 pens: claimed Facebook claimed   The most prominent claim, and one that was re-shared verbatim by several different accounts, stated: "Pelosi uses $15,000.00 worth of bullet pens to impeach the president. President Trump uses $1.99 Sharpie to sign $2 billion trade deal with China. That's the difference in a business man and a worthless professional."  re-shared verbatim several different While this claim was widespread, it was not supported by evidence. We have encountered no news reports, budget statements, or any other credible information to support the claim that Pelosi used $15,000 worth of pens (or $450,000 worth of pens or $2,025 per pen) to sign the articles of impeachment against Trump. Furthermore, these claims appear to have originated with random social media users who would not have been privy to this sort of information. As these users appear to have been making this information up out of whole cloth, it isn't surprising that the alleged cost of these pens varies from one claim to the next.  Drew Hammill, Pelosi's deputy chief of staff, told us that the pens Pelosi used to sign the articles of impeachment cost just under $15 apiece, and that they were the same type of pen used to sign other pieces of legislation. At $15 a piece, that means the total cost for these pens was about $450, well under the $15,000 (or $450,000) amount claimed in those baseless social media posts.  Does Trump use a $2 Sharpie to sign legislation?  In 2017, the Trump administration placed an order with long-time pen supplier A.T. Cross for 150 "Century II" pens to be used for signing executive orders. A.T. Cross has been supplying pens to the White House since at least the 1970s. While the cost of these pens vary by model, the Century II pens that Trump used at the start of his administration (this model was also used during President Barack Obama's administration) cost a little over $100 a piece at retail.  placed an order However, Trump has since switched from the Century II pen to a Sharpie pen. While Sharpie pens can certainly be purchased in the $2 range, Trump doesn't use a Sharpie that you can purchase at a school-supply store. The Commander-in-Chief reportedly uses a custom Sharpie with his signature inscribed down the side. You can see an image of the pen Trump uses to sign executive orders here. custom Sharpie here We reached out to the White House and Newell Brands, the company that manufacturers Sharpies, for more information on Trump's pen. While we can't say exactly how much Trump spends per pen, it seems reasonable to assume that this custom pen is worth more than a $2 generic Sharpie, but well under the $100 pens used at the start of his administration. The "Official Donald J. Trump Fine Point Markers" available via the Trump campaign shop are sold for $15 for a five-pack (which works out to $3 piece).  Trump campaign shop Is it unusual to use multiple pens to sign important legislation? In addition to claiming that Pelosi used obscenely expensive pens to sign the articles of impeachment against Trump, many social media users were upset that the House Speaker used multiple writing utensils and then handed them out as souvenirs to mark the occasion. However, this isn't an unusual practice.  In fact, on the same day Pelosi handed out the impeachment pens to various lawmakers, Trump performed a similar ritual in the Oval Office after signing a trade deal with China.  The photograph above is available via Getty Images with the following caption: "WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 15: U.S. President Donald Trump, accompanied by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer (2nd L) and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin (R), hands out pens to Senators after he and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, signed phase 1 of a trade deal between U.S. and China, in the East Room at the White House, on January 15, 2020 in Washington, DC. Phase 1 is expected to cut tariffs and promote Chinese purchases of U.S. farm, and manufactured goods while addressing disputes over intellectual property. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)"  Getty Images Time Magazine explained that this tradition  using multiple pens to sign a document and then to give those pens to various people involved  dates back to at least the 1930s when Franklin D. Roosevelt was in office: explained The pen used to sign historic legislation itself becomes a historical artifact. The more pens a President uses, the more thank-you gifts he can offer to those who helped create that piece of history. The White House often engraves the pens, which are then given as keepsakes to key proponents or supporters of the newly signed legislation. When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, he reportedly used more than 75 pens ... and gave one of the first ones to Martin Luther King Jr. Senators Hubert Humphrey and Everett McKinley Dirksen also received pens for their aid in shuttling the bill through Congress. And in 1996, President Clinton gave the four pens he used to sign the Line-Item Veto bill  which allowed Presidents to veto individual sections of legislation rather than the entire thing  to those most likely to appreciate the bill's impact: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. The U.S. Senate also provided souvenir pens in 1999 during the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. According to a contemporary report in the Akron Beacon, senators used silver Parker Vector pens (worth about $10 a piece) to sign the oath book after they were sworn in and were allowed to keep the pens as a memento:   Unfortunately, the pens used during Clinton's trial contained a typo (the term "United States Senator" on the pen was misspelled "Untied States Senator") and had to be replaced.  replaced Did Pelosi Use $15,000 Worth of Pens to Sign the Articles of Impeachment? In summary, no evidence exists to support the claim that Pelosi used $15,000 worth of pens to sign the articles of impeachment. This claim originated with random social media accounts and was not supported with documentation. Furthermore, Pelosi's chief of staff refuted the claim, saying the pens cost just under $15 a piece. While some may find it objectionable to hand out souvenir pens after signing such a grave document, it isn't unusual. The tradition of using multiple pens to sign important documents, and then giving those pens away to the people involved, can be traced back decades.  Klein, Betsy.  "'Trump Sticks With Tradition for Presidential Pen Choice."
  CNN  27 January 2017. Hanbury, Mary.  "'Make it Look Rich': Trump Told Sharpie to Create a Custom Pen For Him to Sign Important Documents."
  Business Insider  16 November 2018. O'Rourke, Ciara.  "No, Nancy Pelosis Impeachment Pens Didnt Cost $2,025 Each."   Politifact.  17 January 2020. Akron Beacon.  "Pens Ink Spot in History."
  8 January 1999. Suddath, Claire.  "Why Did Obama Use So Many Pens to Sign the Health Care Bill?"   Time Magazine.  24 March 2010. Correction [18 January 2020]: The markers available via the Trump campaign store are sold in packs of 5, not individually as originally stated. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, millions of Americans who lost income due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic were waiting on promised relief payments from the United States government. So when news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump was making the "unprecedented" move of having his name added to these stimulus checks, a decision that could potentially delay the arrival of these checks by several days, many citizens took to social media to voice their displeasure, as in the example below: millions of Americans social media   Trump's name is truly being added to the COVID-19 stimulus checks, otherwise known as Economic Impact Payments. As of this writing, however, officials at the U.S. Treasury Department insist this will not result in any delays.  The Washington Post first reported on Trump's decision on April 14, 2020. According to the news outlet, Trump's name is expected to appear in the memo line of the check, not as the payment's official signatory, and that this will be the "first time that a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement": reported The Treasury Department has ordered President Trumps name printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said. The unprecedented decision, finalized late Monday, means that when recipients open the $1,200 paper checks the IRS is scheduled to begin sending to 70 million Americans in coming days, President Donald J. Trump will appear on the left side of the payment. It will be the first time a presidents name appears on an IRS disbursement, whether a routine refund or one of the handful of checks the government has issued to taxpayers in recent decades either to stimulate a down economy or share the dividends of a strong one. Treasury officials disputed that the checks would be delayed. While Trump's name will appear on these stimulus checks, we can't predict whether these payments will be delayed or go out on time. A Treasury Department official said in a statement that "absolutely no delay whatsoever" would occur:  statement "Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned  there is absolutely no delay whatsoever ... In fact, we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates." It should also be noted that many Americans will be receiving their stimulus payments via a direct deposit. It's unclear how many people will receive hard paper checks bearing Trump's name and how many will receive a digital payment.  An IRS official told Fox News that the number of people who will receive paper checks was subject to a "number of variables, including how much info the IRS obtains through the Non-Filers Enter Payment Info web portal and the Get My Payment portal launching [April 15] at IRS.gov. Fox News These Economic Impact Payments were included in the $2.2 trillion stimulus package that Trump signed in late March 2020. According to the IRS, direct-deposit payments had already started going out as of the second week in April. Those waiting on a paper check, however, may not see their payments for several weeks. (If you're waiting on a payment, you can check the status of your check on a recently launched web app from the IRS.) several weeks web app To sum up: It is true that in April 2020, the U.S. government made the unprecedented move of adding the president's name to stimulus checks issued by the IRS in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although an IRS official said this could slow the process and delay the delivery of checks, Treasury officials insisted that the checks would still go out on schedule.  Paine, Neil.  "More Than 16 Million Americans Have Lost Their Jobs In The Past Three Weeks."
  Five Thirty Eight.  9 April 2020. Raju, Manu; Fox, Lauren; Klein, Betsy.  "Some Americans Could Wait 20 Weeks to Receive Stimulus Checks, IRS Tells House Democrats."
  CNN.  2 April 2020. Olson, Tyler and John Roberts.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  Fox News.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Lederman, Josh Phil Helsel.  "Trump's Name Will Appear on Coronavirus Relief Checks."
  NBC News.  14 April 2020. Denmark is a big shame The sea is stained in red and in the mean while it's not because of the climate effects of nature. It's because of the cruelty that the human beings (civilised human) kill hundreds of the famous and intelligent Calderon dolphins. This happens every year in Feroe iland in Denmark. In this slaughter the main participants are young teens. WHY? To show that they are adults and mature.... BULLLLsh In this big celebration, nothing is missing for the fun. Everyone is participating in one way or the other, killing or looking at the cruelty "supporting like a spectator" Is it necessary to mention that the dolphin calderon, like all the other species of dolphins, it's near instinction and they get near men to play and interact. In a way of PURE friendship They don't die instantly; they are cut 1, 2 or 3 times with thick hocks. And at that time the dolphins produce a grim extremely compatible with the cry of a new born child. But he suffers and there's no compassion till this sweet being slowly dies in its own blood Its enough! We will send this mail until this email arrives in any association defending the animals, we won't only read. That would make us accomplices, viewers. Take care of the world, it is your home!      The photographs displayed above were taken in 2005 and document a drive hunt (commonly known as a "grind") of long-finned pilot whales by residents of the Faroe Islands (which are an autonomous province of Denmark), an activity that has long been a subject of international controversy. document long-finned Faroe Islands The whale hunt has been a part of the Faroe Island culture for hundreds of years, but in recent decades the practice has increasingly become the subject of international protest and condemnation. Supporters of the hunt maintain that the killing of pilot whales is "an age-old communal, noncommercial hunt aimed at meeting the community's need for whale meat and blubber," that the animals are dealt with so quickly that their pain is brief, and that whale meat accounts for a quarter of the Faroe islanders' annual meat consumption. Conservationists charge that the hunts, which may take hundreds of whales at a time, are barbaric and pointless, that "the practice is outdated, cruel and unnecessary for a place with one of the highest standards of living in Europe," and that most of the whales go to waste (either being left on the beach to rot or thrown back to sea after they are killed. According to Russell Fielding, a geographer from the University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee: The Faroese are opportunistic hunters who launch a grind only when specific conditions are met. The animals must be close to shore, near one of 23 beaches approved as a landing beach. The weather and currents have to be calm enough. And there have to be enough participants to crew the dozen or so powerboats required to drive the animals toward shore. In some years, such as in 2008, conditions weren't right and no whales were taken. But over the past three centuries, the Faroese have taken an average of 838 pilot whales and 75 dolphins each year, Fielding reported in a 2012 study. The Faroese usually target long-finned pilot whales, says Fielding, although they will also take bottlenose dolphins, white-sided dolphins, and Risso's dolphins. Risso's dolphins are sometimes landed even though they aren't on the Faroe government's list of species approved for hunting. None of the species are considered endangered, although the International Union for Conservation of Nature lists long-finned pilot whales as "data deficient," meaning there isn't enough scientific evidence to judge the status of the North Atlantic population. A Faroe Islands whaling site page describes such hunts unfolding as follows: whaling site Whale drives only take place when a school of pilot whales is sighted close to land, which is most often from a local fishing boat or ferry, and when sea and weather conditions make it possible. This can take place at any time of the year, but catches are most common in July and August when the days are long and the weather is more stable. Notice of the school is sent to the elected whaling officials and to the district administrator (sslumaur) responsible for the whale drive, and is spread as widely and quickly as possible in the local community so that enough people and boats can join in the drive. Employers usually make allowances for members of their staff to take time off during whale drives. The boats gather in a wide semicircle behind the whales and slowly and quietly begin to drive themtowards the chosen authorised bay. On the whaling foremans signal, loose stones and stones attached to lines are thrown into the water behind the whales, helping to herd the whales towards the beach where they become stranded. According to the regulations, any group of whales which cannot be beached in this manner must be driven out to sea again. A crucial factor in ensuring an effective whale drive is the organisation of participants, both in boats and on shore, in addition to prevailing weather and tidal conditions during driving and beaching. The spontaneous nature of a whale drive requires swift mobilisation of manpower to drive and kill a group of large wild animals quickly. Whale drives are only initiated when whales are sighted by chance close to land. Faroese animal welfare legislation, which also applies to whaling, requires that animals are killed as quickly and with as little suffering as possible. Whales are killed on the shore and in the shallows of bays especially authorised for the purpose. A regulation spinal lance must be used to sever the spinal cord, which also severs the major blood supply to the brain, ensuring both loss of consciousness and death within seconds. This, in addition to the supplementary use of the traditional whaling knife, if necessary, is the most efficient and humane means of killing beached pilot whales safely, with many participants involved at the same time. In recent years, two new items of equipment have been developed and formally approved and required as standard equipment. The blow-hole hook used to secure the whales causes no injury prior to slaughter and is now widely used. The spinal lance has now also been introduced as the preferred standard equipment for killing pilot whales. It has been shown to reduce killing time to 1-2 seconds while also improving accuracy and safety (see also under Whaling and animal welfare). The Faroes participate actively in the work of the NAMMCO Committee on Hunting Methods, where veterinary experts and experienced hunters from different countries share information and work to develop best practices for the humane killing of marine mammals. In 1986 the International Whaling Commission (IWC) introduced "zero catch limits for commercial whaling"; however, the IWC's rules still allow for subsistence hunting in some parts of the world, and the application of their regulations to long-finned pilot whales is somewhat ambiguous since (despite their name) those animals are not whales proper; they are (like dolphins) small cetaceans, and they belong to the same biological family (Delphinidae) as dolphins. IWC small cetaceans In late 2008, chief medical officers of the Faroe Islands advised that they no longer considered pilot whales to be fit for human consumption because the animals' meat and blubber had been found to contain too much mercury, PCBs and DDT derivatives. advised As noted above, the Faroe Islands are an autonomous province of Denmark and not a part of Denmark itself; essentially a self-governing country within the Kingdom of Denmark, with their own prime minister and legislature. MacKenzie, Debora.  "Faroe Islanders Told to Stop Eating 'Toxic' Whales."   New Scientist.  28 November 2008. Environmental News Network.  "Conservation Groups Call for an End to Faroe Island Whale Hunts."   CNN.com.  11 September 2000. Los Angeles Times.  "Faroe Islands Reject Whale-Kill Protests."   27 August 1985. Reuters.  "Faroe Islands Fishermen Cited for Brutality in Whale Hunt."   Toronto Star.  22 June 1987  (p. A24). Reuters.  "Islands' Whale Hunt, Part of National Identity, Angers Activisits."   Rocky Mountain News.  29 October 1994. Claim:  Food stamps can now be used to purchase alcohol and tobacco products.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2014] Is the following true? I am pretty sure it isn't, but can't find any other information other than this website. "President Obama signs SNAP Fairness Act of 2014 Into Law: Alcohol & Tobacco Products No Longer Prohibited from Food Stamps."   Origins:  On 7 December 2014, the Salty Badger web site published an article claiming President Obama had signed legislation called "The SNAP Fairness Act of 2014" into law, making it legal to purchase alcohol and tobacco (items that have long been excluded from the food stamps program) with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) electronic benefit (EBT) cards: article President Obama signed the "SNAP Fairness Act of 2014" into law today, 12/7/14, thirty-four days after both houses of Congress narrowly passed the controversial bill overcoming strong Republican resistance both in the Senate and House. All SNAP-eligible Americans will be enjoying a late Christmas present this year courtesy of Uncle Sam. Wrapped inside with a red, white and blue bow will be increased food stamp funds and the right to use their EBT card to buy alcohol and tobacco products.   Hakeem Jeffries of New York's 8th Congressional District stated, "For too long, American citizens have been discriminated against at the grocery store. There is no reason my constituents should be barred from purchasing a 6-pack of Coors Light with their EBT card to go along with their steak dinner, also purchased with their EBT card. To expect low-income hardworking Americans to go out of pocket for essentials such as cigarettes and beer is not only racist, but cruel. I am proud to stand with my president today in this historical signing for food stamp fairness." The article uses the names of real politicians, like President Obama and Hakeem Jeffries, but that's the only factual element of the story. The SNAP Fairness Act of 2014 does not exist, President Obama didn't sign any bills into law on 7 December 2014, and SNAP benefit cards cannot be used to purchase alcohol or tobacco products.  sign purchase The photo used to illustrate this fictitious article shows President Obama sitting at his desk in August 2013 signing the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act, not the SNAP Fairness Act, into law.  August 2013 The Salty Badger may not be as well known as fake news sites such as Huzlers or World News Daily Report, but the web site's mission is the same: To spread misinformation. The Salty Badger, which prides itself on being "not always right, but always first," notes in their mission statement that: mission statement When the Salty Badger was conceived and born from two genius minds, literally minutes prior to writing this statement, we had three major goals in our minds: Bring our brand of comedy to the forefront, have beautiful women throwing themselves at us, and get Scrooge McDuck rich.  We will settle for any one of the three.  We will sneak our humor into the minds of the world one individual at a time     Last updated:  10 December 2014 In the spring of 2020, as protests against racial injustice and police brutality swept across the U.S. following the death of a Black man in police custody, online trolls started to spread racist propaganda in an attempt to smear the Black Lives Matter movement. Generally speaking, these posts made inflammatory and violent claims, then falsely attributed them to BLM. For example, one such hoax held that BLM protesters were going to "assassinate white families."  hoax In June 2020, Snopes came across yet another flyer falsely attributed to Black Lives Matter that labeled white men, women, and children as "the enemy":   But this is not a genuine flyer issued or endorsed by Black Lives Matter. This is a piece of racist propaganda that was created in an apparent attempt to smear BLM and heighten racial tensions.  It isn't clear who created this fake poster. The earliest posting that we could find was from June 11, 2020, from a Twitter account devoted to QAnon, a wide-ranging and far-right conspiracy theory based almost entirely on anonymous social media posts that claim a deep state plot exists against President Donald Trump. From there, it was shared to the Russian site Aftershock.news; an All Lives Matter account; and an account adorned with British flags, where it received thousands of retweets. QAnon Aftershock.news All Lives Matter  account While we've found several accounts sharing this flyer along with messages denigrating Black Lives Matter, we've yet to see any accounts connected to the Black Lives Matter movement sharing this flyer in earnest.  In addition to the fact that this flyer originated with posters critical of BLM  and not with BLM accounts spreading this message in earnest  the statements on this flyer are also contrary to the positions of the Black Lives Matter movement. Nowhere on the Black Lives Matter website are white people identified as "enemies," and the website is void of any calls to violence against white people.  BLM has also not called for "re-education camps," for "Black power" to run the government, or for white people to stop dating outside their race. The official Black Lives Matter website has put out a list of "demands," but that list has practically nothing in common with the viral hoax shown above. The official list from Black Lives Matter calls for an end to systematic racism and for the national defunding of police: Black Lives Matter We call for an end to the systemic racism that allows this culture of corruption to go unchecked and our lives to be taken. We call for a national defunding of police. We demand investment in our communities and the resources to ensure Black people not only survive, but thrive. If youre with us, add your name to the petition right now and help us spread the word. The "demands" on the hoax flyer did not originate with BLM. The items on this list are examples of what someone who is unfamiliar with the Black Lives Matter movement may fear are central tenets of this group. When a similar fake flyer was found in England, a local BLM activist told Scotland's Evening Telegraph: Evening Telegraph Joy Gansh, a local BLM activist, believes the display was created by people trying to discredit the movement. She said: Things like that, after what happened with the George Floyd mural being defaced, I think thats something that a white supremacist would put up to discredit us. Nobody that Ive seen advocating for the BLM movement would think that that is appropriate. My personal opinion is that this is people being framed. This is a way to make us seem in the wrong. The art student, who plans to organise a BLM march in Dundee soon, believes that white supremacists are using false posters to encourage violence. People that hold those kinds of beliefs arent part of this movement, she added. "This seems like a way to stop us in our tracks and make us seem violent so they can come back with violence. We arent here for violence, were just here for justice and equality in all aspects of life. This fake flyer, as well as similar items, have been pushed on internet forums such as 4chan in an explicit attempt to smear the Black Lives Matter movement. In one post, for example, a 4chan poster states that "people are falling for this [hoax flyer], let's kick it into overdrive." In another thread, users exchange various fake BLM posters and encourage each other to share them. In another thread, a user gives instructions on how to make and spread this racist propaganda: 4chan smear thread thread The only thing maintaining the completely bizarre state of affairs the USA and the world is in right now is the fact that some white people still think they can be on the "right side of history" by kneeling for the Noseberg-controlled BLM movement. We can destroy their whole plan. Make propaganda posters and spread them around. If enough whites realize that blacks will never ever feel that anything is "enough", they'll abandon the movement. It'll crash and burn.  Asarch, Steven.  "Is The 'Go Bald For Black Lives Matter' Movement Real?"
  Newsweek.  5 June 2020. Breland, Ali.  "Alt-Right Trolls Are Trying to Sabotage Black Lives Matter Chatrooms."
  Mother Jones.  8 June 2020. Bell, Matteo.  "Outrage at Posters in Dundee Calling for Police, MPs and White People to be Killed."
  Evening Telegraph.  12 June 2020. CORRECTION [17 June 2020]: The original article misstated the date of publication of this image on the Russian site Aftershock.news. This image was posted to that site on June 12, not June 6, as originally stated. In January 2016, a quote attributed to first U.S. president George Washington, about the importance of an armed citizenry, started recirculating on the internet:  This statement had been making the online rounds for several years, but it regained popularity in January 2016 after President Obama announced new measures on gun control. announced George Washington never uttered the phrase in question. The first ten words ("a free people ought not only be armed and disciplined") are taken from the former president's annual address to theSenate and House of Representatives on 8 January 1790, in which he argued in favor of an armed citizenry and self-sufficiency in production military supplies as a deterrent to war: annual address Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies. The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy. A page dedicated to fake quotes attributed to George Washington on theMount Vernon web site addressed this passage as follows: addressed This quote is partially accurate as the beginning section is taken from Washington's First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. However, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate. Although this meme does include a portion of Washington's first annual addressto members of theSenate and House of Representatives in1790, the majority of the quotewas never utteredby the Founding Father, and does not accurately represent his views on gun control. Nonetheless, its apocryphal nature doesn't hinder its continued reproduction as a genuine expression from George Washington: A budget storm is brewing in Tallahassee, and Senate President Mike Haridopolos is making clear that no agency, program or area may be spared from impending cuts.Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, met with reporters on Jan. 12, 2011, to offer his outlook regarding Florida's $3.62 billion budget shortfall for the coming fiscal year. Haridopolos predicted that it would be difficult to pursue any significant tax cuts -- like those being championed by Gov. Rick Scott -- and that everyone should expect spending cuts.That includes education funding, he warned.More than $3 billion in federal stimulus funds have helped the state fill education budget holes for the past two years, but those funds sunset this spring. And while some additional federal funds are coming available, about $555 million, Florida's budget picture remains bleak, Haridopolos said.Whether you like to admit it or not, half our general revenue goes to education, Haridopolos was quoted as saying in theOrlando Sentinel. It's a very difficult spot to be in, and the reason we wanted to make the adjustments to the class-size amendment defeated by voters in November. Haridopolos was referring to an amendment proposed by the Legislature to ease class-size requirements at Florida schools so the state could save money. That measure failed to receive the needed 60 percent voter approval to pass.For this fact check, we decided to zero in on Haridopolos' claim that half of state general revenue goes to fund education.Understanding the state budget and education fundingIn his claim, Haridopolos is talking about a subset of the state budget, which is a subset of state's share of education funding in Florida, which is a subset of overall education funding in Florida. Oh, and he's not just talking about K-12 spending, but also state spending on the state university system, pre-Kindergarten and student aid programs.We'll walk you through it.Let's start with the state budget, which you can imagine by picturing a three-legged stool.Leg one: General revenue (what Haridopolos is talking about). General revenue makes up about 34 percent of the current state budget. The money mostly comes from sales taxes -- though some comes from telephone and cable taxes, corporate income taxes (which Scott has vowed to phase out), and taxes on property transactions. The state has broad discretion on how general revenue is spent.Leg two: State trust funds. State trust funds make up about 27 percent of the current state budget. That is money collected by the state to be used for a specific purpose. The state gas tax is funneled into a transportation trust fund, for example, to pay for road building projects. Florida Lottery proceeds roll into the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund. (The Legislature, at times, has raided trust funds to help balance the budget. )Leg three: Federal dollars. Federal dollars this year comprise about 39 percent of the state budget. Federal dollars primarily fund the state's Medicaid program, but also help fund education, road projects and the criminal justice system.So while each leg helps fund education programs from pre-K through college, Haridopolos is focusing on the general revenue fund. In the current budget, 56 percent of all state education spending came out of general revenue, and it's the portion of state spending the Legislature can most easily control.Now, here's a second important primer.The state doesn't fund education all by itself. Hardly. Local school districts contribute billions of dollars on their own through local property taxes. Most of those property taxes, believe it or not, are set at rates mandated by the Legislature through something called the Required Local Effort. In short, school districts are forced to collect the amount of property taxes the Legislature decides, or the districts won't get to share in state funding.In addition, there are other property taxes individual school districts have discretion over. None of those funds are technically state revenues for the purpose of this analysis.If this isn't confusing enough already, the context of Haridopolos' statement also is important. He's talking about potential cuts in education funding because of less federal dollars and lower sales tax receipts that are affecting the state's bottom line. One way to offset those cuts would be to raise the Required Local Effort, but the Republican-led Legislature that sets the tax has been opposed to that idea. Drilling down on general revenueNow, sticking to Haridopolos' statement and examining only general revenue, the Senate president is correct.Of the $23.8 billion of general revenue budgeted to be spent between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011, $12.5 billion was directed to education -- pre-K through college.Divide one into the other and you see that education spending currently equals more than 52 percent of general revenue. You can see the full breakdown of general revenue spending on Page 5 ofthis report.Haridopolos spokesman David Bishop said the state expects to receive $22.6 billion in general revenue for the 2011-2012 fiscal year.If you look at the overall state budget, education funding made up about 32 percent ($22.4 billion) of the entire $70 billion state budget in 2010-2011. RulingAs Haridopolos talked in Tallahassee about the grim state budget prospects for this coming year, he said state education funding might see cuts. Part of the problem is just how much of the budget is tied to education funding, he said -- half of the state's general revenue fund.To be honest, Florida's education funding structure is way more complicated than Haridopolos let on. But he's right that the state general revenue fund, which is a little more than a third of the overall state budget, is being used primarily to fund education.We rate this statement True. Voters in Ohio are enduring a deluge of fundraising emails from political groups ahead of the November election, like one from Friends of Sherrod Brown. The senator, in the middle of his second term, is hoping to garner support for fellow Democrat Ted Strickland. Outside special interests like to spend money in Ohio, Browns email said. Back in 2012, they spent $40 million trying to buy my seat in the Senate. Right now, the special interests are up to $30 million spent against Ted -- with the Koch network spending more money in Ohio than anywhere else in the country. Strickland, the former Ohio governor, is running for Senate against incumbent Republican Sen. Rob Portman in one of the tightest races in the country. The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, of Koch Industries, are tied as the sixth-richest people in the world, each worth an estimated $42 billion. As political and policy influencers advancing a free-market agenda, their network includes the nonprofit Americans for Prosperity and the super PAC, Freedom Partners Action Fund The Kochs can usually be counted on to fund conservative causes, but they haverecoiledfrom the 2016presidentialrace. Is down-ballot spending in Ohio the Kochs biggest imprint so far in the 2016 elections? We turned first to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics for its tallies of outside contributions. The Koch brothers, through their political action network, have spent approximately $8 million in the senate race in Ohio, with almost$2 millionfrom Americans for Prosperity and a little over$6 millionfrom Freedom Partners Action Fund. That is more than the Koch-backed groups have spent in any other race in the country, according to OpenSecrets records. The Koch networks next-largest spending, by comparison, is in North Carolina, where Americans for Prosperity has spent a mere $200,000 againstRep. Renee Ellmers, and in Pennsylvania, where Freedom Partners Action Fund has spent almost $3 million in opposition toKatie McGinty. In opposition spending by Freedom Partners, Strickland has taken the most punishment in 2016 to date, the Center for Responsive Politicsreported. So the Koch network is contributing substantially to help Portman keep his seat. But where did Brown get the $30 million spent against Ted? Here are the numbers for outside spending contributions in the Ohio senate race, according to OpenSecrets.org:  If you add the total outside spending for Portman, and the spending against Strickland, you get $19,232,784. (Were leaving out the primary race spending for the other Democratic candidate, P.G. Sittenfeld, who Strickland beat -- thats the difference between our total and the $19,990,270 above.) Where does the other $10 million come from? Strickland spokesman David Bergstein told PolitiFact Ohio that, in tracking money spent against the candidate, the campaign monitorsannouncementsof advertising purchases, some of which come from 501(c)(4) organizations that dont have to report to the Federal Election Commission. Those dollars, therefore, dont appear on sites like OpenSecrets.org. Counting announcements of spending from these nonprofits, the conservative estimate is closer to $30 million, the campaign said. Bergstein provided a spreadsheet confirming that figure. Stricklands campaign isnt suffering from a lack of outside spending as much as Browns email might suggest.Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC dedicated to putting Democrats in Senate seats, has spent $8.4 million against Portman and $1.8 million for Strickland. We shared our analysis with Freedom Partners Action PAC, and the group did not dispute our findings. Our ruling A fundraising email in support of Strickland said that the billionaire-backed Koch network has devoted the most money to oppose the Ohio senate candidate than in any other race in the country. Americans for Prosperity and the Freedom Partners Action Fund have spent about $8 million to oppose Strickland, which is more than theyve dropped in any other race this election season to date. Stricklands campaign, while hardly immune to special interests, is the Koch networks biggest target in an election year that has seen conservative benefactors steer clear of the main ticket. We rate the claim True.