Did Elon Musk Delete a 'Go Eagles' Tweet After Team's Super Bowl Loss?
On Feb. 13, 2023, journalist Matt Bindertweeted, "Elon Musk deleted his Eagles tweet after they lost lol." The post included what appeared to be a screenshot of the alleged tweet reading "Go @Eagles!!!" with American flag emojis, and referenced the 38-35 loss by the Philadelphia Eagles to the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl LVII.  We've seen countless fake tweets over the years; those are images that were created to look like famous people posted things that they didn't actually. However, in this case, Musk's "Go @Eagles!!!" tweet was real. It temporarily appeared on Musk's account the night of the Super Bowl, Feb. 12, and it was deleted hours later, after the Chiefs won. For that reason, we rated this claim  [Seealso:Did Elon Musk Sit with Rupert Murdoch at Super Bowl LVII?] Did Elon Musk Sit with Rupert Murdoch at Super Bowl LVII? According to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, Musk's "Go @Eagles!!!" tweet was live for at least four hours, including for an unknown amount of time after the Kansas City Chiefs won the game around 10:15 p.m. (EST). The same page capture from the Wayback Machine showed that, about 3.5 hours later, Musk also tweeted "GG Kansas City @Chiefs !!" and described Rihanna's halftime show with two fire emojis. That post had also been deleted, as of this writing. It's unclear exactly when or why the tweets were deleted. same page capture Wayback Machine Rihanna's halftime show As of this writing,both links where the tweets once lived for public viewing read, "Hmm...this page doesn't exist. Try searching for something else." both links [See also:Was a Super Bowl LVII 'Script' Leaked Online?] Was a Super Bowl LVII 'Script' Leaked Online Binder, Matt. Twitter, 13 Feb. 2023, https://twitter.com/MattBinder/status/1625144529136324610. "Wayback Machine." Internet Archive, https://web.archive.org/.
On Dec. 14, 2022, Twitter user Sheetz is Antifa (@wawajawn) posted an imageof a map appearing to show that, since 2010, Elon Musk's jet had made 12 trips toconvictedsex offender Jeffrey Epstein's island, Little Saint James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands.  However, after other users reposted the image, @wawajawn soon admitted to creating it and said that it was fake.  According to NBC News, a lawsuit that was settled in November alleged that Little Saint James and Great Saint James, both of which the late Epstein owned, were once used as "the base of an extensive sex trafficking operation." NBC News The tweet with the fake map image was shared by @wawajawn on the same day that Twitter removed an account named @elonjet that had tracked the real-time location of Musk's aircraft. We previously reported on that story, which included the news of alleged stalking and the banning of several journalists, among other developments. reported Despite the map image being fake, it still spread on other Twitter accounts, including popular shares fromAnonymous Operations(@AnonOpsSE) and a user named Keith Edwards (@keithedwards). Anonymous Operations Edwards is a former communications director for the Florida Democratic gubernatorial candidate Nikki Fried's 2022 campaign. He also once worked for the anti-Trump organization known as the Lincoln Project. Edwards tweeted, "This is old data from Elon's jet, so it's ok to share." This was somewhat of a response to a tweet Musk had shared just seven minutes earlier. tweeted Musk's tweetread, "Any account doxxing real-time location info of anyone will be suspended, as it is a physical safety violation. This includes posting links to sites with real-time location info." The last part of the tweet was apparently what Edwards was referencing: "Posting locations someone traveled to on a slightly delayed basis isn't a safety problem, so is ok." tweet We reached out to Edwards via a Twitter DM to ask if he had posted the map image as a joke, but did not receive a response before publishing this story. A screenshot of @AnonOpsSE's tweet with the fake map image also appeared in new posts on Reddit. One Redditpostshowed @wawajawn's original tweet. new posts post Many of the comments in the posts, as well as replies to tweets, noted that there appeared to be no landing strip on Little Saint James, which would mean that the flight path in the image couldn't even be a possibility. noted On top of all of the shares on Twitter and Reddit (and 9GAG), the fake image was even posted in a 4Chan thread. (The relevant post can be found by searching the page for the text, "elon-jet-epstein.jpg.") 9GAG thread While the map image was fake, we found that Vanity Fair did reportin 2019 that Musk said he and his then wife, Talulah Riley, once met briefly with Epstein in New York. Musk added that he declined invitations from Epstein to visit his island. Musk and Riley later divorced. report "Several years ago, I was at his house in Manhattan for about 30 minutes in the middle of the afternoon withTalulah, as she was curious about meeting this strange person for a novel she was writing," Musk said. "We did not see anything inappropriate at all, apart from weird art. He tried repeatedly to get me to visit his island. I declined." Riley also provided a statement on Twitter in 2020,saying that the single meeting with Epstein was nothing more than "part of an itinerary of appointments." statement For further reading, we previously reported on a photograph of Musk and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. reported Note: According to an autopsy, Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges in New York. "Aircraft Inquiry." U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResult?NNumberTxt=628TS. Bekiempis, Victoria. "Jeffrey Epstein Charged with Federal Sex Trafficking Crimes." The Guardian, 8 July 2019. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/08/jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-charges-court. Descalsota, Marielle. "Meet Talulah Riley, the British Actress Who Married Elon Musk Twice and 'Took a Career Break' to Care for His Children with His First Wife." Insider, 7 Sept. 2022, https://www.insider.com/who-is-talulah-riley-elon-musk-wife-divorce-thomas-sangster-2022-9. ---. "Take a Look inside Elon Musk's $70 Million Private Jet, Which He Says Is the Only Exception to His Disdain of Luxuries like Yachts and Vacations." Business Insider, 22 Apr. 2022, https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-private-jet-gulfstream-g650er-lifestyle-wealth-photos-2022-4. _G0D_M0DE_. "Pedo Guy Elon Musk Visited Epstein's Island 12 TIMES!" r/Hasan_Piker via Reddit.com, 15 Dec. 2022, www.reddit.com/r/Hasan_Piker/comments/zmq6cb/pedo_guy_elon_musk_visited_epsteins_island_12/. Hymes, Clare. Jury Finds Ghislaine Maxwell Guilty on Charges Tied to Jeffrey Epstein's Sex Trafficking Ring. 30 Dec. 2021, https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/ghislaine-maxwell-verdict-2021-12-29/. J_Valente. "Streisand Affect + Elon." r/JoeRogan via Reddit.com, 16 Dec. 2022, www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/zn2ina/streisand_affect_elon/. Liles, Jordan. "Elon Musk's Jet and 'Crazy Stalker' Allegations, Explained." Snopes, 16 Dec. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/12/16/elon-musk-jet-stalker/. ---. "Is the Elon Musk and Ghislaine Maxwell Photo Real?" Snopes, 25 Apr. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/musk-maxwell-photo/. McKinley, Jr., James C. "What Is Known about Jeffrey Epstein's Suicide." The New York Times, 1 Dec. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-suicide.html. Mihalascu, Dan. "Twitter Suspends 'ElonJet' Tracker Although Musk Had Pledged Not To." InsideEVs, 15 Dec. 2022, https://insideevs.com/news/626849/twitter-suspends-elonjet-tracker-although-musk-had-pledged-not-to/. Musk, Elon. Twitter, https://twitter.com/elonmusk/. NazisStoleMyGold. "Elon's Jet Has Been on Epstein Island Many Times." r/WhitePeopleTwitter via Reddit.com, 15 Dec. 2022, www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/zmgdvs/elons_jet_has_been_on_epstein_island_many_times/. Norton, Tom. "Fact Check: Did Elon Musk Visit Jeffrey Epstein after Release from Prison?" Newsweek, 9 Nov. 2022, https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-elon-musk-visit-jeffrey-epstein-after-release-prison-1757919. Ogles, Jacob. "Nikki Fried Campaign Announces Trio of Key Communications Hires." Florida Politics - Campaigns & Elections. Lobbying & Government., 14 Mar. 2022, https://floridapolitics.com/archives/508146-nikki-fried-campaign-announces-trio-of-key-communications-hires/. "/Pol/ - Why Has Elon Turned His Back on Freedom of Speech - Politically Incorrect - 4chan." 4Chan, 15 Dec. 2022, https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/408416848/why-has-elon-turned-his-back-on-freedom-of-speech. razaxun. "Elon Musk Jet." 9GAG, 15 Dec. 2022, https://9gag.com/gag/axozVxb. @Realitycheck8d. Twitter, https://twitter.com/realitycheck8d/. Schapiro, Rich, et al. "Jeffrey Epstein's Estate Agrees to Pay the Virgin Islands More than $105 Million to Settle Civil Suit." NBC News, 30 Nov. 2022, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/jeffrey-epsteins-estate-agrees-pay-virgin-islands-105-million-settle-c-rcna59491. Sherman, Gabriel. "As the Epstein Case Grows, Manhattan and DC Brace for Impact." Vanity Fair, 17 July 2019, https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-case-grows-more-grotesque. @TalulahRiley. Twitter, https://twitter.com/talulahriley/. The Lincoln Project's Social Guru Keith Edwards on Going Viral. 2020, https://www.cbsnews.com/video/the-lincoln-projects-social-guru-keith-edwards-on-going-viral/. An image widely circulated on Facebook in response to the National Football League's anthem controversy held that NFL players did not stand on the sidelines during the playing of the U.S. national anthem before games prior to 2009. Instead, they stayed in locker rooms during the anthem and did not begin standing along the sidelines for renditions of "The Star-Spangled Banner" until after the Defense Department began paying the NFL to hold patriotic displays in 2009:  The issue has been in the public spotlight ever since San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick began protesting police brutality by kneeling during the playing of the national anthem during exhibition games played prior to the start of the 2016 NFL season. Several other players, including some in other sports, have since taken part in similar silent demonstrations during the 2016 and 2017 seasons. Tom E. Curran of Comcast Sportsnet New England reported in a story published on 29 August 2016 that teams standing together on the field during the playing of the national anthem was a relatively recent development in NFL history: "NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy confirmed this the practice began in 2009, adding, 'As you know, the NFL has a long tradition of patriotism. Players are encouraged but not required to stand for the anthem.'" published What actually changed in 2009, according to NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy, was that (due to network timing issues) players had previously remained in their locker rooms during the playing of the national anthem for primetime games.  After 2009, players appeared in the sidelines for the anthem during primetime games, just as they had been doing all along for Sunday afternoon games.  (The distinction often went unnoticed by viewers, as network telecasts frequently didn't air the pre-game anthem ceremonies.)   ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith referenced Currant's report during a segment on 14 September 2016, adding a "paid patriotism" element to the mix: segment The players were moved to the field during the national anthem because it was seen as a marketing strategy to make the athletes look more patriotic. The United States Department of Defense paid the National Football League $5.4 million between 2011 and 2014, and the National Guard [paid] $6.7 million between 2013 and 2015 to stage on-field patriotic ceremonies as part of military recruitment budget-line items. The practice of "paid patriotism" came to light on 30 April 2015, when Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) released a statement chiding the New Jersey Army National Guard for paying between $97,000 and $115,000 to the New York Jets for a series of promotions involving military personnel. That November, Flake and fellow Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain issued a report stating that the Defense Department had been paying for patriotic displays in football and other sports between 2011 and 2014: statement report Contrary to the public statements made by DOD and the NFL, the majority of the contracts  72 of the 122 contracts we analyzed  clearly show that DOD paid for patriotic tributes at professional football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and soccer games. These paid tributes included on-field color guard, enlistment and reenlistment ceremonies, performances of the national anthem, full-field flag details, ceremonial first pitches and puck drops. The National Guard paid teams for the opportunity to sponsor military appreciation nights and to recognize its birthday. It paid the Buffalo Bills to sponsor its Salute to the Service game. DOD even paid teams for the opportunity to perform surprise welcome home promotions for troops returning from deployments and to recognize wounded warriors. While well intentioned, we wonder just how many of these displays included a disclaimer that these events were in fact sponsored by the DOD at taxpayer expense. Even with that disclosure, it is hard to understand how a team accepting taxpayer funds to sponsor a military appreciation game, or to recognize wounded warriors or returning troops, can be construed as anything other than paid patriotism. However, this report did not cover the year 2009, so it is unclear whether NFL teams' appearing on the field for the playing of the national anthem truly began in conjunction with the "paid patriotism" policy. In a September 2017 piece about the anthem controversy, CNN noted that:  [T]he connection between "paid patriotism" and players being mandated to be present for the anthem is tenuous. The report does mention several instances where teams were paid for anthem performances, but that was about the specific artist or presentation. There is nothing in the report to suggest teams were paid or coerced into pulling players on to the field as part of "paid patriotism" initiatives. In fact, Pentagon spokesman Army Major Dave Eastburn recently clarified the Defense Department's current relationship with professional sports. "DoD does not require or request that athletes be on the field during the playing of the national anthem when military members are part of the patriotic opener," he said in a statement to CNN. The league announced in May 2016 that they would refund $723,724 to taxpayers which they said "may have been mistakenly applied to appreciation activities rather than recruitment efforts" during the years in question. announced Willingham, A.J.  "The National Anthem in Sports (Spoiler: It Wasn't Always This Way)."
  CNN.  25 September 2017. Jacobson, Louis.  "A Short History of the National Anthem, Protests and the NFL."
  PolitiFact.  25 September 2017.
 This story was updated to note that 2009 changes in NFL anthem policy were specific to primetime games. 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. Steven M. Costantino, a former House Finance Committee chairman, was more than a hundred miles away, working in Vermonts state government, when newly disclosed public records and emails fueled a wave of recent headlines on the $75 million 38 Studios boondoggle. From the other side of the Green Mountains, he could feel the spotlight. The states financing of the upstart video-game company, to the tune of $75 million in loan guarantees, lured 38 Studios from Massachusetts to Providence in 2010, but left Rhode Island taxpayers vulnerable in the companys 2012 bankruptcy. Amid the torrent of new headlines about 38 Studios, Costantino, who is now commissioner of the Department of Vermont Health Access, issued the following statement on Sept. 27: My only involvement in the matter in RI was because of my former position in the RI legislature. I did not play any role in bringing the company to RI as did others in government. I was tasked with handling the legislation affecting the company by my superiors. Costantino acknowledges he was involved with the legislation, but denies any role, compared with what others in government did, to bring  Curt Schillings 38 Studios to Rhode Island. How can he have been both involved and not involved? Unfortunately, the former lawmaker did not respond to our request for an interview, leaving us to sort out this contradiction on our own. The freshly released emails and deposition transcripts hark back to early 2010 when Rhode Islands courtship of 38 Studios began to get serious. The documents give the public a window into which state officials were driving the 38 Studios deal. Costantino comes across as a behind-the-scenes facilitator, helping to lay the groundwork for the public financing. The comments recorded in the depositions and other records show that Costantino: Developed the idea for guaranteeing 38 Studios loans. He was the first to advocate for 38 Studios receipt of a $75-million state guaranteed loan, according to Keith Stokes,chairman of the R.I Economic Development Corporation at the time. And J. Michael Saul, then the EDCs finance director, recalls that Costantino proposed the expansion of an existing loan guarantee program during a visit to 38 Studios headquarters in Maynard, Mass. And at the conclusion of the meeting, Saul testified, he turned to me and asked me the question: If we were to increase the $50-million (loan program) to $125 million would this -- Im paraphrasing here -- would this be helpful to get this done? In another email, an EDC lawyer, Robert I. Stolzmanadvised Carcieris chief of staff Andrew Hodgkin that he had sent him several documents including a draft authorizing the RIEDC to guarantee 38 Studios debt (at the suggestion of House Finance Chairman Costantino, the  draft  reflects a larger authorization for this as a Jobs Creation Guaranty Program). Costantino, in his deposition in 2014, did not to dispute anything in the Stolzman note. Was among just a few lawmakers in the loop. Only House Speaker Gordon Fox, Senate President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed, Sen. Daniel DaPonte, and Costantino knew about the 38 Studios transaction when the General Assembly approved the bill for the guarantees in 2010, according Marcel A. Valois,the EDCs former director. Another email from Stolzman, the EDCs lawyer, suggests that Sharon Reynolds, the House fiscal adviser, and Costantino were privy to certain background and summary information on the 38 Studios transaction  before Governor Carcieri. Shielded the 38 Studios transaction from public scrutiny. During a videotaped discussion of the bill on the House floor on April 13, one lawmaker asked about the origins of the loan guarantee legislation and who was behind it. There's always conversations with lobbyists and small businesses, Costantino said. He didnt name 38 Studios. Later on in June of 2010, Costantino told Stolzman he hadnt told a Providence Journal reporter about his visit to 38 Studios. And Costantino said he wanted to know what EDC staffers were saying about the deal. Steered the legislation for 38 Studios guaranteed loan. In two separate April 2 emails with the numerals 38 noted in the subject line, Stokes mentions Costantinos role in scheduling the legislation, advising others that Steven Costantino wants to move on it next week and that Costantino has advised him that House Speaker Fox wants to post the item for hearing. Our ruling In his defense, Costantino issued a statement in which he said:  I did not play any role in bringing the company to RI as did others in government. I was tasked with handling the legislation affecting the company by my superiors. In other words: Dont blame me, I was just doing my job. But the records and comments of people involved illustrate that Costantino played a key part in Rhode Island's courtship of 38 Studios. The legislation he helped pass, offering valuable loan guarantees, was his idea, according to one former EDC official. During the process, Costantino shielded his idea from the type of full political scrutiny that might have killed it. He did this by not naming 38 Studios on the House floor when he was asked who was pushing for the loan-guarantee program. When the deal was done, the CEO of Schilling's company thanked all members of the General Assembly and singled out five elected officials by name, including the former House Finance Committee chairman. Costantino played a pivotal role in creating the 38 Studios mess. In some ways, the record shows he bears as much responsibility as the other elected government officials who tasked him. We rate his statementFalse. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) On 18 April 2018 Facebook page The Newly Press shared a text-based meme asserting that taxpayer-subsidized Planned Parenthood was spending upwards of $30 million to influence the outcome of the upcoming midterm elections: Newly Press meme   A later similar meme claimed specifically that all $30 million was going to Democratic candidates:    However, a 16 April 2018 Roll Call piece made clear a distinction absent from Internet memes, namely that the $30 million figure represented monies to be provided by a coalition of organizations, of which Planned Parenthood Votes was but one member: Roll Call A coalition of liberal organizations that includes the political arm of Planned Parenthood rolled out a $30 million program to mobilize infrequent voters to cast ballots for progressive candidates in the  midterm elections. Targeting [people of color, young people, and women] is a time-worn strategy, but it has not worked in the previous midterm cycles mostly because efforts often engage too close to election day and dont build real relationships, the coalition said in its release. The other organizations funneling money and resources to the initiative  which the coalition is calling Win Justice  are the Center for Community Change Action, Color Of Change PAC, and the Service Employees International Union. The organizations are targeting 1.25 million voters in Florida, a million in Michigan, and 250,000 in Nevada through door-knocking and text messaging with volunteers. Roll Call also noted that the multiple-group initiative included Planned Parenthood Votes, which is "the political arm of Planned Parenthood" (i.e., a super PAC branch), an entity separate from the main Planned Parenthood Federation of America organization: Planned Parenthood Votes  Memes such as the one referenced above suggest it should be "highly illegal" for Planned Parenthood to receive taxpayer subsidies yet expend monies on political activities.   According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations such as Planned Parenthood are indeed "prohibited" from funding such endeavors: prohibited Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. However, Planned Parenthood is affiliated with two offshoot political entities which are separate from the main organization and thus can be involved with funding midterm elections. Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) is a 501(c)(4), which the IRS stipulates "may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status." involved stipulates The second organization, Planned Parenthood Votes, is a Super PAC. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) defines Super PACs such as Planned Parenthood Votes as "committees that may receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other political action committees for the purpose of financing independent expenditures and other independent political activity." Super PAC In short, Planned Parenthood itself is not "dishing out $30 million on midterm elections" in violation of the law.  Rather, a separate political arm of Planned Parenthood (which is donor-funded and may legally engage is such activities) is one part of a coalition of several groups that is expending an aggregate of $30 million on mobilizing infrequent voters for the 2018 midterm elections. Bois, Paul.  "Planned Parenthood Spending $30 Million on Midterm Elections."
  Daily Wire.  18 April 2018. Bradner, Eric.  "First on CNN: Planned Parenthood to Target 8 States, Spend $20 Million as Part of Midterm Battle Plan."
  CNN.  1 March 2018. Connolly, Griffin.  "Planned Parenthood, Other Groups to Spend $30 Million on Midterms."
  Roll Call.  16 April 2018. Federal Election Commission.  "Types of Nonconnected PACs."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. IRS.gov.  "The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. IRS.gov.  "Social Welfare Organizations."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. Ballotpedia.  "Planned Parenthood Votes."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. Planned Parenthood.  "nformation For Attorneys And Other Professionals."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. Planned Parenthood Action Fund.  "Planned Parenthood Votes, Planned Parenthood Action Fund Launch 2018 Electoral Program."
  1 March 2018. Claim:  An employer issued a missive to his employees stating that any additional taxes on his business would result in his shutting the company down. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2008] To All My Valued Employees, There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc. Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don't see is the back story. I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business  hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden  the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough.  I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child'sfuture. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy stupid" I'm telling you it isn't. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about. Signed,Your boss  Origins:  In the ramp-up towards the 2008 Presidential election and in its wake, a number of anonymous "Here's how you, the ones who voted for him, will directly suffer from a Barack Obama presidency" missives landed in inboxes everywhere. One such was putatively from a hard-working and generous grandfather telling his beloved liberal granddaughter that her support for Obama meant Grandpa was no longer going to be in a position to help her financially. Another was supposedly penned by CEO to his 140 employees informing them that thanks to the new taxes now surely headed his way, he'd have to lay off a few of them, so he was starting with those whose cars sported Obama bumper stickers." lay off The "To All My Valued Employees" letter quoted above is another of such ilk. In it, a boss threatens to shut down his company (thus wiping out the livelihoods of the 14 people who work there) if any more taxes are levied upon him, an outcome he views a virtual  certainty under an Obama presidency.  The piece is perhaps best viewed as an attempt to put into real-world terms the possible consequences to average folks if business is interfered with to the point of no longer being able to operate rather than as an actual letter sent by a real boss to his employees.  Although our earliest sighting of this item dates to 3 November 2008, textual clues within the missive (such as"Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best" and "So, when you make decision to vote") indicate it was likely penned sooner than just the day before the 2008 presidential election. The original author of this piece is unknown to us. While some versions are merely signed "Your Boss," others are attributed to Michael A. Crowley of Wake Forest, North Carolina, via inclusion of his signature block at the end of the piece. Crowley himself denies authorship, saying: In reference to the "To all my valued employees" letter currently circulating the internet:  This letter was forwarded to me by a colleague. While the letter may indeed be authentic, I was not the author and I do not know the identity of the original author. I forwarded it to the "John McCain Joe the Plumbers" email group prior to the election. Someone moved my contact information into the body of the message making it appear that I was the author of the letter. I would appreciate your removing my contact information prior to forwarding this message.  Michael A. Crowley, PE While sometimes people looking to distance themselves from soapbox pieces they've penned subsequently claim they found such contentious items elsewhere on the Internet and merely forwarded them to others, that is not the case here. More than just Crowley's own words of denial support his claim of non-authorship, with the key to that proof lying in the very signature block that has worked to convince so many of his being the real "boss" behind the letter. That signature block identifies his firm as Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc., a now defunct business entity that (according to North Carolina's Secretary of State) was formed in May 2007.  The missive so widely laid at Crowley's feet states "I started this company 12 years ago." Twelve years prior to 2008 was 1996. (His current firm, Crowley & Associates, Inc., was formed in October 2000.) Were Crowley the actual author, that line about when he began his company would have read "last year" or "8 years ago."  The response to the missive falsely attributed to him prompted Michael Crowley to pen his own letter on the plight of the small business owner, which can be read here. here In October 2012, David Siegel, the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, sent a modified version of this letter to all of his employees. He based his missive on that much-circulated 2008 piece, saying of his offering: "I did use the letter that had circulated before as a guideline, but I changed it [to fit my circumstances]. It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls."  sent Last updated:  9 October 2012 In May 2017, the Affordable Care Act (more popularly known as Obamacare) returned to the news thanks to a Congressional vote to attempt to change the health insurance law. Those developments resurrected a meme that attributed the following quote to former Alaska governor and one-time vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin: news Obamacare has already made people less responsible for their own health. Like, if you don't want limes disease, then don't eat so many limes. Is that so tough? Although the precise origin of the meme was not immediately apparent, we were able to find that it was published at least as early as June 2014 by Facebook pages such as Republican BS and FreeDumb Nation: Republican BS FreeDumb Nation   The meme bears a faint watermark, which is difficult to spot (it's located at the mid-to-lower right hand corner or the image) but is associated with the satire page Christians for Michele Bachmann.  Christians for Michele Bachmann The same watermark can be more clearly seen on another image created by the same satirical Facebook page (original background art credited to @the_pizzacat on Instagram): @the_pizzacat on Instagram   Nothing that comes from this page is intended to be taken seriously  including the quote attributed to Palin. In early June 2021, social media users shared a photograph that purportedly showed a billboard displaying a black-and-white image of billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk along with the message, "Defend billionaires. We're just like you."   We were unable to find any evidence that this billboard exists in the real world. There are no news reports about it, which would be surprising given that single tweets penned by Musk often spark headlines. Also, none of the posts containing the photo included any specific information, such as where this alleged billboard is located. headlines The image appears to be a joke poking fun at Musk and others among the mega-wealthy, a class of people who have been in the news lately for stories critical of wealth inequality and the fact that billionaires are able to avoid paying income taxes. avoid Another red flag: The image contains what appears to be an image of Musk that can be easily found on the internet and a black background, which other social media users have used to create their own billboards. Here are some examples.      While we're very skeptical this billboard exists anywhere, without definitive proof we're rating this as "Unproven" for now. This would not be the first time, however, that Musk has been trolled via billboard. trolled 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 late May 2020, social media users shared a meme that contained a misleading claim about the state of California. The meme said the state had announced it would give undocumented residents a stimulus payment on the same day it said it would lay off first responders due to diminished state funds resulting from the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, implying the two events are causally linked.   California Gov. Gavin Newsom on April 15, 2020, acknowledged undocumented residents paid $2.5 billion in state and local taxes in 2019. He then announced the state would draw up a total of $125 million sourced from charitable donations and taxpayer funds to provide $500 stimulus payments to those residents. That was because they didn't qualify to receive federal stimulus checks under the CARES Act, a relief package meant to blunt the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. acknowledged CARES Act This announcement was unrelated to another statement Newsom made more than a month later. In the latter, he urged the federal government to provide financial assistance to states and local governments struggling with economic shortfalls to their operating budgets due to forced business closures during the pandemic. In an interview on CNN on May 21, Newsom stated that without federal help, cities and counties may be forced to lay off first responders. interview "The next time they want to salute our heroes, our first responders, our police officers and firefighters, consider the fact that they are the first ones to be laid off by cities and counties," Newsom said when asked by CNN host Jake Tapper what would happen if the federal government failed to bail out states and local governments. "The folks who are out there, the true heroes of this pandemic, are health care workers and nurses. Those county health systems have been ravaged, their budgets have been devastated and depleted, the budget accounts depleted since this pandemic." Budgets that deal with first responders like police, firefighters, and paramedics are generally administered by local governments, meaning it would be cities and counties in California, not the state itself, that would have discretion over whether or when to cut those services. Furthermore, Newsom didn't "announce" such layoffs would take place; he simply suggested cuts may occur in the absence of intervention from the federal government to financially shore up local governments. As of late May, California was facing a $54 billion budget shortfall resulting from economic fallout of stay-at-home orders that forced shuttering of most commerce beginning in mid-March, in an effort to slow the spread of the COVID-19 disease. The state one year earlier had a surplus of $21 billion. $54 billion In sum, Newsom didn't "announce" layoffs for first responders but instead projected that layoffs at the local level were a looming possibility. He also didn't make the statement on the same day that he announced California would commit $125 million ($75 million of which would come from taxpayers) to give undocumented state residents $500 stimulus payments. The two events are unrelated, although the meme attempted to link them causally. We therefore rate this claim  Lightman, David."Fact Check: Gavin Newsom Warns of Layoffs for Police, Firefighters. Is He Exaggerating?"
Sacramento Bee.21 May 2020. CNN."Newsom Warns of Police, Fire Layoffs in California."
21 May 2020. Associated Press."California Announces $125 Million Fund for Undocumented Immigrants Impacted by Coronavirus."
15 April 2020. Associated Press."California Faces a Staggering $54 Billion Budget Deficit Due to Economic Devastation from Coronavirus."
7 May 2020. Recently, activists have shown up at Hillary Clintons campaign events to urge her to bring back Glass-Steagall. What is Glass-Steagall? Its the Depression-era bank regulation that kept different types of financial institutions separate; then-President Bill Clinton signed legislation reversing it in 1999. Some Glass-Steagall supporters argue that its demiseled to the 2007 financial crisis, and some Democrats have put a good amount of effort into restoring it -- such as presidential candidates Martin OMalley and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. But Hillary Clintonwon't pledge to reinstateGlass-Steagall if she becomes president. And Bill Clinton says criticism over the laws repeal is unfounded. Look at all the grief I got for signing the bill that ended Glass-Steagall, Bill Clinton said in an interview with Inc. magazinefor its September issue.There's not a single, solitary example that it had anything to do with the financial crash. Given the significant attention on Glass-Steagall among Democrats, we wondered if its true that it didnt have anything to do with the financial crash. Our research shows the laws demise was part of a broad deregulatory push that greatly contributed to the financial crisis. But Clinton has a point that a direct line from the 1999 repeal to the market crash in 2007-08 is hard to identify. Too big to fail Congress passed Glass-Steagall in 1933, in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash that led to the Great Depression. The law kept commercial banks (where customers deposit money and take out loans) separate from investment firms (which hold securities and make investments) -- more colloquially, the law separated Main Street from Wall Street. Some experts and lawmakers want to keep these kinds of activities separate, because theyre worried that merging them could put the publics money at risk. Heres a simple hypothetical: A bank merges with an investment firm to create a massive company. The investment side makes a huge bet on an investment that fails big time, so the commercial bank sides money -- money individuals have deposited for safe-keeping -- could be at risk. Because those deposits are federally insured, it might require a government bailout. (Think too-big-to-fail.) Supporters of the law say keeping these activities separate prevents this kind of domino effect. Is this what caused the most recent financial crisis? Theres plenty of room for debate here, given that thereisnt a single what-caused-the-crisis narrativethat every economist accepts. Its safe to say, though, that there is not a prominent group of economists who argue but for the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall, the crisis would not have happened. Lawrence White, an economist at New York University, doesnt see Glass-Steagall playing any role in the financial crisis whatsoever. He pointed to the crisis biggest culprits: firms such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs and AIG, to name a few. He added that much of the crisis hinged on activity by these institutions that would have been possible with or without Glass-Steagall, such as mass investment in notoriously bad mortgage loans. (Clintons staff linked us to commentary by several other experts who share Whites view.) We also contacted Barry Ritholtz, a wealth management expert and commentator, whosaidGlass-Steagall would have done nothing to stop the financial crisis, but not having it made the crisis worse. It encouraged banks to get bigger and to take on riskier investments, so the ripple effects of the crisis were bigger than they would have been otherwise, he said, adding that itwasnt just the headline-making banksthat struggled. The extent over Glass-Steagalls effect on the financial crisis is a topic on which reasonable people can disagree. More so in Clintons favor is the fact that Glass-Steagall was a shadow of its former self by the time 1999 rolled around. Deregulating like its 1999 A few decades out from the Depression, starting in earnest in the 1970s, there was a push to roll back financial regulations that continued throughout the administrations of former presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. As part of that movement, banks and lawmakers steadily chipped away at Glass-Steagall and took advantage of loopholes. Banks were engaging in the kinds of activity Glass-Steagall was intended to stop even though the law was still on the books. By the time Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act, commonly known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley, repealing the key components of Glass-Steagall in 1999, the regulation was nearly toothless. The law was simply catching up to what the market had already accomplished in the previous 10 to 15 years, said Kathleen Day, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and an expert in financial crises. Take for example the poster child of the end of Glass-Steagall: The merger of Citicorp, a bank, and Travelers Group, a financial conglomerate, was announced in 1998 before Glass-Steagall was repealed. Even though this was the exact type of merger Glass-Steagall was intended to halt, the financial industrydid not see many obstaclesfor the creation ofCitigroup. Citigroup and others wanted and got the repeal of Glass-Steagall in order to validate what they had already been allowed to do, said Simon Johnson, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. So the overall, decades-in-the-making decline of Glass-Steagall might have contributed to the financial crisis and its fallout, as it was part of the deregulatory push. But Clinton putting pen-to-paper on the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 probably didnt make any meaningful difference. But Clintons hands arent clean of the financial crisis, because his administration played no small part in the longer term deregulatory trend. Clinton and his administration did not make an earnest attempt to maintain oversight over the big, hybrid banks created by the demise of Glass-Steagall, Day said. Additionally, the administrations firm decision not to regulate other aspects of the financial market played a meaningful role in the crisis -- for example, the absence of regulations regarding over-the-counter derivatives, which were becoming increasingly prevalent,despite internal warnings. Clintons claim might be technically true, but its a sin of omission, Day said. Our ruling Clinton said, There's not a single, solitary example that signing the bill to end Glass-Steagall had anything to do with the financial crash. By focusing on the bill that officially repealed Glass-Steagall, Clinton's statement ignores the fact that the demise of Glass-Steagall took place over decades, amid a deregulatory push in which the Clinton administration played a role. By the time the law to repeal hit his desk, Glass-Steagall had been whittled down so much that it wasnt very meaningful. It's a matter of debate how much of a role the overall demise of Glass-Steagall had in causing the financial crisis, but we couldn't find any economists who argue that the regulation was the sole linchpin keeping the financial system stable until its official repeal in 1999. Overall, we rate Clintons claim Mostly True.