Was the NYC Veterans Day Parade in 1995 rescued by Donald Trump?
A story from 1995 resurfaced around Veterans Day 2019, reporting that then-private citizen and real estate mogul Donald Trump had "saved" the Veterans Day parade that year in New York City when organizers ran out of money. On Nov. 6, 2019, for example, the Daily Caller News Foundation website published a story bearing the headline, "The 1995 NYC Veterans Day Parade Had $1.21 In The Bank. Then Donald Trump Stepped In." A meme circulating on Facebook similarly described Trump's intervention:This claim apparently originated with Trump himself, or at least it was touted on his campaign website in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The website at the time stated: headline  campaign website Mr. Trump has long been a devoted supporter of veteran causes. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II, only 100 spectators watched New York Citys Veteran Day Parade. It was an insult to all veterans. Approached by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the chief of New York Citys FBI office, Mr. Trump agreed to lead as Grand Marshall a second parade later that year. Mr. Trump made a $1 million matching donation to finance the Nations Day Parade. On Saturday, November 11th, over 1.4 million watched as Mr. Trump marched down Fifth Avenue with more than 25,000 veterans, some dressed in their vintage uniforms. A month later, Mr. Trump was honored in the Pentagon during a lunch with the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. First off, Trump's website contained some confusing pieces of misinformation: The Veterans Day parade in New York City went by the name the "Nation's Parade." The poorly attended parade "with only 100 spectators" occurred in 1994, not 1995 (The New York Times reported police did not give a crowd estimate). Only one Veteran's Day parade took place in the city in 1995  the Nation's Parade on Nov. 11. That event was slated by the U.S. Defense Department as representing "the official close of the 50th anniversary of World War II." reported We contacted the United War Veterans of New York (UWNY), which organized the Nation's Parade in 1995, to ask about claims that Trump's intervention saved the event from cancellation, and we were referred by spokesman Pat Smith to a Nov. 10, 1995, New York Times article about the event. Smith told us that Trump did make a financial contribution toward the parade, but also said UWNY is a small, volunteer-staffed group that doesn't keep records that could answer questions in detail about an event that occurred more than two decades ago. article  The 1995 Times article reported that Trump did make a financial contribution, but that he tried to make it in exchange for being named the parade's grand marshal even though he is not a veteran. The Times reported Trump gave $200,000, not $1 million: By mid-August, organizers had a bank account of exactly $1.21. A request to airlines to donate blankets for aging veterans was turned down because logos might not be visible on television. Then Donald Trump, a nonveteran, agreed to throw in $200,000 as well as raise money from his friends, in exchange for being named grand marshal. Since then, money has come in, though not enough to meet the original budget, which was reduced from $2.9 million to $2.4 million. Fireworks were just one of many cuts. In May 2016, CNN spoke to Vincent McGowan, the president emeritus of UWNY who organized the parade in 1995. McGowan said that Trump's contribution was "somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000," but McGowan also said Trump's donation did save the event. McGowan also said Trump was never the grand marshal because that honor was only given to military veterans. CNN In a follow-up story, the Times in 1995 reported that organizers had agreed to make Trump the parade's grand marshal, a move that had angered some veterans, while others expressed appreciation for his "crucial" financial assistance: reported Also in the reviewing stand was the developer Donald Trump, who provided the only note of controversy in an otherwise positive day. Many veterans were angry that organizers had agreed to name Mr. Trump, who is not a veteran, as grand marshal in exchange for his contribution of $200,000 and help in raising additional funds. Another story, dated Nov. 11, 1995, from the news service UPI, reported that Trump contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000 for the parade, which was viewed by parade Director Tom Fox as having been key: UPI Police estimated 500,000 people attended the largest military parade ever held in New York. Organizers, who placed the turnout at closer to a million, said the parade would not have been a success if it hadn't been for real estate developer Donald Trump, who contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000. "Donald Trump saved the parade," said parade director Tom Fox, himself a Vietnam veteran. "We had asked for donations from 200 corporations, and none of them came through," he said. "This donation is the single most important thing I've ever done," said a beaming Trump. "This is more important than all of my buildings and my casinos. This is my way of saying thank you to all the men and women in the armed services who have made it possible for me to become a success. Without them freedom and liberty would be gone." In sum, we are rating this claim "True" because two individuals involved with the planning of the 1995 parade stated on two separate occasions that Trump's efforts and donation did indeed enable the event to take place. Still unclear are the origins of other sources of funding. Martin, Douglas."Veterans Day Parade Tries for a Comeback."
The New York Times.10 November 1995. Fitzpatrick, David and Curt Devine."Trump Will Give $1 Million to Marine Charity, but There Are Other Discrepancies."
CNN.25 May 2016. McFadden, Robert D. "On Parade To the Beat of History."
The New York Times.12 November 1995. UPI."More Than 500,000 Watch Nation's Parade."
11 November 1995.
On 29 November 2016, President-elect Donald Trump issued a controversial tweet about imposing strict consequences for flag burning: flag burning Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016 November 29, 2016  Shortly thereafter, people began to circulate a tweet purportedly sent by Trump five years earlier that expressed the opposite view and condoned that form of protest:  Determining that the 2011 tweet had been faked was simple enough using Twitter's advanced search tool, which pulled up the entirety of Trump's February 2011 remarks on Twitter and turned up no such post. February 2011 Also, Donald Trump's tweets garnered far less engagement back in 2011 than they would several years later, after he began his run for the presidency.  Rather than the tens of thousands of likes and retweets displayed in the purported February 2011 Trump pro-flag burning tweet seen above, his Twitter posts from that period typically prompted less than a hundred of each:   Check out today's video blog https://bit.ly/g75JiuI want to answer more of your questions, tweet me.....  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011 February 28, 2011  ALso coming up: The Celebrity Apprentice returns. Sunday night March 6 at 9 pm EST https://www.nbc.com/the-apprentice/  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011 February 28, 2011  Although it is possible to delete tweets, most of Trump's deleted tweets have been archived by third-party services. Claim:  President Bush is responsible for a 17% increase in Medicare premiums. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to help Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium increase  the biggest in history"? That ad is a stroke of genius on Kerry's part and will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed. It was found to be so amazing that someone did some homework on the issue. As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton, voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into effect during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to reverse what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton administration. Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people. Don't be duped by his misstatement of facts! Origins:  The availability of health care and the associated costs of medical care, prescription drugs, and insurance are a major issue in every campaign, especially among older voters.  With premiums for the government-funded Medicare program scheduled to rise from $66.60 to $78.20 per month in January 2005 (a 17.4% increase over current levels, and 56 percent higher than the premiums charged in 2001), both sides in the upcoming presidential election are seeking the upper hand on the issue. Medicare Democrats have maintained that the Bush administration bears much of the responsibility for the increase in premiums because it has done little to control health costs and had directed too much Medicare money to the managed health care industry, and Democratic nominee John Kerry's campaign aired a commercial that (incorrectly) implied that President Bush  was responsible for the increase in Medicare premiums ("George Bush imposes the biggest Medicare premium increase in history . . .").  President Bush's campaign countered by running a TV spot that (incorrectly) stated Senator Kerry had "voted five times to raise Medicare premiums": Republicans had hoped to emphasize their support of Medicare in this campaign season, after making herculean efforts to pass legislation adding drug benefits to the health program for 41 million people who are elderly or disabled. But the new law, signed by Bush in December, has met mixed reviews. The drug benefits, representing the largest expansion of Medicare since its creation in 1965, do not become available until 2006, and the increase in premiums has nothing to do with the new drug coverage. Beneficiaries will have to pay an additional premium, expected to average $35 a month in 2006, for drug benefits. The Bush campaign advertisement, titled "Medicare Hypocrisy," says, "It was Mr. Kerry who voted five times to raise Medicare premiums." The votes, from 1985 to 1997, were not on premiums alone, but on comprehensive budget bills that included hundreds of provisions affecting Medicare and scores of other federal programs. Like most political issues, health care is a complex subject that has been shaped and affected by many different pieces of legislation, and no one person or political party is solely responsible for the rise in Medicare premiums.  Those interested in trying to follow the bouncing ball and track the origins of the 17% increase in Medicare premiums may find this article helpful. article Last updated:  12 October 2004    Sources:    Pear, Robert and Carl Hulse.  "Medicare Costs Are New Focus for Candidates."   The New York Times.  12 September 2004  (p. 1).     The [Pottstown] Mercury.  "Health Care a Passionate Issue for Candidates."   1 October 2004. Claim:  Text reproduces an open letter to Americans from Russian president Vladimir Putin. INCORRECT ATTRIBUTION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2013] A letter from Russian President Vladimir Putin to the American people has been circulating around the internet for the past couple of days. In the letter, Putin re-introduces Americans to some unpleasant facts about history and life theyd rather forget, such as Nixons reasoning behind massive carpet bombing of millions or North Vietnamese for the purpose of 'looking good' while exiting the war, and how Pakistan has been using the U.S. as a 'false ally' to gain foreign aid, while using the funds to embolden the Taliban in Afghanistan. He calls out Barrack Hussein Obama for having the audacity to meet with gay rights activists while he is in Russia next week, a group Putin despises, while refusing to carve away time to meet with him and solve the Syria issue. He compares the action to the equivalent of him (Putin) coming to the U.S. and meeting with Obamas domestic enemy, the N.R.A.  How do I put this politely? You Americans are dumb. Today, Russia and America are fighting each other over fighting the Muslim radicals. Instead, we should be uniting to crush these violent Islamists, once and for all.  You Americans want to remove my ally, the Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad. To borrow a phrase from your John F. Kennedy, Assad may be a son-of-a-bitch, but hes my son-of-a-bitch. So if you want to destroy him, what are you going to give me in return? If your answer is, "We will give you nothing," well, why would I ever agree to that? That's not negotiation, that's dictation; it's a return to the bad Yeltsin days, when Holy Mother Russia was pushed into the mud like a used whore. [Remainder of the letter can be viewed here.] here Origins:  This "open letter" from Russian President Vladimir Putin to Americans, putatively expressing that politician's viewpoints on U.S. military intervention in the Syrian civil war and other international matters, was published on breitbart.com on 3 September 2013 under the  breitbart.com title "LETS JOIN ONE ANOTHER TO CRUSH THE UNHOLY, UNRULY, JIHADI MUSLIMS" and attributed to Vladimir Putin.  Many readers who encountered this item on that site (and elsewhere) mistook its attribution and first person tone as an indication that the piece was actually written by President Putin himself.   Even though this item may have been cast in the first person and mockingly bylined as something penned by "Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin," it's not an actual open letter to Americans written by the Russian president.  It's a political opinion piece that uses a "literary ventriloquism" device through which an author expresses his viewpoint by putting his words into someone else's mouth  highlighting what the writer wants the audience to understand by presenting the author's words as another person's, as if the audience were "inside the mind of" that other person. Coincidentally, nine days later the New York Times published a (much more temperate) op-ed piece about U.S. military intervention in Syria which was also bylined with Vladimir Putin's name.  According to the UK's Guardian newspaper, the editorial had been offered to the Times by the public relations firm Ketchum (which works on behalf of Russian interests), and the idea for the article and its basic content did indeed come from President Putin, with some of his assistants crafting the final text.  op-ed Last updated:  12 September 2013 In August 2020, readers asked us to examine the accuracy of claims that before he took office, U.S. President Donald Trump had made donations to a previous election campaign of Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., whom presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden named as his vice-presidential running mate.  Shortly after Biden named Harris as his running mate on Aug. 11, the president's reelection campaign denounced her as "phony Kamala," claiming she was willing to "abandon her own morals, as well as try to bury her record as a prosecutor, in order to appease the anti-police extremists controlling the Democrat party." named denounced In an email sent to supporters, the Trump campaign also labeled Harris "a corrupt former California Attorney General":   Paul Begala, a former advisor to former President Bill Clinton, alluded to a degree of irony in this allegation, claiming in a tweet that "Trump donated to Kamala Harris when she was [attorney general]." claiming In widely shared tweets, NBC News correspondent Tom Winter claimed that Trump had twice contributed to Harris' election campaign, in 2011 and 2013, donating a total of $6,000. Winter also said that Trump's daughter and advisor Ivanka Trump had herself donated $2,000 to Harris' campaign in 2014: claimed   Those claims were accurate. Records available through the campaign finance database on the website of the California secretary of state show that Trump made two contributions to Harris' 2014 campaign for reelection as California attorney general: a $5,000 donation on Sep. 26, 2011, and a $1,000 donation on Feb. 20, 2013. Harris first took office in January 2011, which means Trump contributed to her reelection when she had already been in office for eight months, and two years, respectively.  database In March 2019, The Sacramento Bee reported that a spokesperson for Harris' presidential primary campaign had said she "donated the $6,000 Trump had contributed to a non-profit that advocates for civil and human rights for Central Americans," with the newspaper adding that Harris' donation of the money took place in 2015.  reported We contacted spokespeople for both Harris and Biden, requesting further details about that claim, including the name of the charity in question, and the date on which Harris purportedly donated $6,000 to the charity. We did not receive a response in time for publication. The campaign finance database also reveals that the future president made several other campaign contributions in California, to both Republicans and Democrats. He donated $2,500 to the unsuccessful 2010 gubernatorial campaign of Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who was ultimately elected to that office in 2019; he gave a total of $3,500 to Democrat Jerry Brown's successful 2006 bid to become California attorney general; he donated a total of $12,000 to committees supportive of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger; and gave $25,000 to the state's Republican party, in 2005.   The database also corroborates Winter's claim that in June 2014, Ivanka Trump  adviser to, and daughter of, the president  herself made a $2,000 donation to Harris' successful campaign to be reelected as the state's attorney general. She also contributed $500 to the unsuccessful 2010 gubernatorial campaign of Newsom:   Ronayne, Kathleen; Weissert, Will. "Biden Picks Kamala Harris as Running Mate, First Black Woman."
 The Associated Press. 11 August 2020. Cadei, Emily. "Big-Dollar Donors, Including Donald Trump, Fueled Kamala Harris' Political Rise in California."
 The Sacramento Bee. 4 March 2019. Claim:  Canadian Richard Brunt penned an open letter about America's midterm elections.  On 7 November 2014, shortly after midterm elections in the U.S., the Detroit Free Press published Canadian Richard Brunt's open letter to American voters, a missive that quickly went viral on the Internet: published  A Canadian perspective on the #GOPtakeover. pic.twitter.com/NmBaPjnqju #GOPtakeover pic.twitter.com/NmBaPjnqju  Rick Strandlof (@RickStrandlof) November 9, 2014 November 9, 2014  Brunt wrote in his letter, titled "You Americans have no idea just how good you have it with Obama," that his fellow Canadians were confused about the results of the midterm elections. For Brunt, the Republican gains in those elections did not make sense to him when things were seemingly going so well in the U.S.:  Many of us Canadians are confused by the U.S. midterm elections. Consider, right now in America, corporate profits are at record highs, the country's adding 200,000 jobs per month, unemployment is below 6%, U.S. gross national product growth is the best of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. The dollar is at its strongest levels in years, the stock market is near record highs, gasoline prices are falling, there's no inflation, interest rates are the lowest in 30 years, U.S. oil imports are declining, U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing, the deficit is rapidly declining, and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money. America is leading the world once again and respected internationally  in sharp contrast to the Bush years. Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden. So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason. When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way? Richard Brunt Victoria, British Columbia The letter was soon shared thousands of times on Facebook and Twitter by both Republicans and Democrats, although their reasons for sharing the message were very different:  Hey Richard Brunt, of Victoria, British Columbia... if you want our Obama, you can have our Obama.  Frank Miani (@FJM2425) November 11, 2014 November 11, 2014  Richard Brunt from British Columbia, telling it like it is... pic.twitter.com/OKm0Rkfu5x pic.twitter.com/OKm0Rkfu5x  Baumer Kid (@bostonsboy87) November 11, 2014 November 11, 2014  Richard Brunt's letter represented one man's opinion, but it wasn't the first such expression of admiration from fans of President Obama up north. In a 2009 article titled "Canada's Love Affair with Barack Obama," for example, author Charlie Gillis wrote: Charlie Gillis We love him, with an asterisk. The broad-band smile, the Lincolnesque bearing, the sense of the man as an avatar of multiculturalism  it all makes Barack Obama the perfect U.S. president in the eyes of Canadians. Heaven knows we've been waiting. When the motorcade rolls down Wellington Street, or pulls up to Rideau Hall, you can expect dewy-eyed kids to line barricades with paper flags, no matter how foul the Ottawa weather. Eighty-two per cent of us say we approve of Obama, the polls indicate, and the number requires a moment to digest. Never mind American politicians. Who's the last American we can say that about?   Last updated:  11 November 2014 Michael Cohen, former personal attorney to U.S. President Donald Trump, became the focus of renewed scrutiny in February 2019 when he testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform. This was Cohen's first Congressional testimony since he was sentenced to three years in prison for tax fraud and campaign-finance violations relating to his payment of "hush money" to women who alleged they had sexual relationships with Donald Trump before he became president. sentenced Cohen also admitted he previously misled Congress when he told the House and Senate Intelligence committees that a proposed deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, Russia, had fallen apart in January 2016, when in fact negotiations continued until June of that year -- by which time Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee for president. misled Following Cohen's dramatic 27 February testimony, some observers, including Trump himself, attempted to portray Cohen as an agent of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who was dishonestly smearing Trump on behalf of the Democratic presidential nominee whom Trump defeated in 2016. The president highlighted the links between Clinton and Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, even suggesting that the former secretary of state was paying Cohen to provide damning testimony against Trump: Michael Cohens book manuscript shows that he committed perjury on a scale not seen before. He must have forgotten about his book when he testified. What does Hillary Clintons lawyer, Lanny Davis, say about this one. Is he being paid by Crooked Hillary. Using her lawyer?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 1, 2019 March 1, 2019   We couldn't find any evidence that Davis has ever acted as Clinton's personal attorney as Trump alleged, but the ties between Davis and the Clintons are longstanding. He served as a special counsel to former President Bill Clinton during the 1990s, attended Yale law school with Hillary Clinton, and was a frequent public supporter of her 2008 and 2016 presidential campaigns, such as is shown in this July 2016 Fox News panel discussion: attended 2008  Against that background, a meme emerged on social media in late February 2019 that claimed an even more direct historical link between Cohen and Clinton, alleging that Cohen had previously served as her personal attorney and was a "member" of the Clinton Foundation, a non-profit organization founded by Bill Clinton that has been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories promulgated by right-leaning opponents of the Clintons. conspiracy theories The meme included a photograph of Hillary Clinton standing alongside two men identified as "Michael Cohen" and "Clinton Foundation Chairman" along with text proclaiming "Michael Cohen used to be Hillary Clinton's personal lawyer and was a member of the Clinton Foundation":   The man identified as Cohen in the meme is indeed Cohen. The man identified as "Clinton Foundation Chairman" is in fact Patrick Kennedy, a Democratic former U.S. representative from Rhode Island and son of the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy. Kennedy has never acted as chairman of the Clinton Foundation. The underlying photograph is authentic. Cohen himself tweeted it in June 2014, writing "Being received by two great Americans ... Hillary Clinton and Patrick Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound": #tbt being received by two great Americans...Hillary Clinton and Patrick Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound pic.twitter.com/z57PXfWxfW #tbt pic.twitter.com/z57PXfWxfW  Michael Cohen (@MichaelCohen212) June 26, 2014 June 26, 2014   The photograph appears to have been taken in 2004 at a fundraising event for Kennedy's re-election campaign, which was attended by then-New York Sen. Clinton as well as Cohen. Greg Ehrlich, who co-chaired the fundraiser in question, later told the Washington Post that It was an opportunity to say he [Cohen] went to the Kennedy compound. And he loved the Clintons. They were like rock stars. Michael was always a climber. He wanted to be the guy. Washington Post Although they once attended the same campaign fundraiser, we could find no evidence to corroborate the claim that Cohen ever acted as Hillary Clinton's personal attorney, despite our searching federal and New York state court records as well as news archives that extend back decades. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Cohen was publicly hostile towards Clinton, on one occasion tweeting out a meme that included the false claim she had "murdered an ambassador": NBC/WSJ poll has @realDonaldTrump beating #CrookedHillary on #Honesty & #NationalSecurity. This picture says it all! pic.twitter.com/E9YKIgoqnV @realDonaldTrump #CrookedHillary #Honesty #NationalSecurity pic.twitter.com/E9YKIgoqnV  Michael Cohen (@MichaelCohen212) June 28, 2016 June 28, 2016  On another occasion, Cohen tweeted at Clinton to say "When you go to prison for defrauding America and perjury, your room and board will be free":   Cohen deleted that tweet after he himself was given a three-year prison sentence for tax fraud and campaign-finance violations. deleted The Clinton Foundation does not have a membership structure, so it is unclear what the precise meaning is of the claim that Cohen was a "member" of the Clinton Foundation, but we also found no evidence that he has ever had any formal or informal association with that organization. We contacted representatives for Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Michael Cohen in order to definitively clarify the veracity of the February 2019 meme, but unfortunately none of them responded in time for publication. For that reason, we issue a rating of "Unproven." Neumeister, Larry and Tom Hays.  "Judge Gives Ex-Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen 3 Years in Prison."
  Associated Press.  12 December 2018. Tucker, Eric et al.  "Trump's Ex-Lawyer Admits Lies About Russian Real Estate Deal."
  Associated Press.  30 November 2018. Schwartzman, Paul.  "Michael Cohen's Secret Agenda."
  The Washington Post.  9 February 2019. Palma, Bethania.  "Did Michael Cohen Tweet at Hillary Clinton That Room and Board Will Be Free When She Goes to Prison?"
  Snopes.com.  22 August 2018. Both Republican and Democratic voters have little love for prescription drug makers. When asked,four out of five Americanssay the cost of drugs is unreasonable. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., has signed on to a bevy of plans to bring prices down. There are too many people profiteering off of the pain of people in America, from pharmaceutical companies to insurers, Booker said at thefirst Democratic debatein Miami. The Trump campaign fired off a reminder that Booker has history with the drug makers. Cory Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry during his political career, @TrumpWarRoomtweeted June 26, the night of the first Democratic debate. FACT: Cory Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry during his political career.pic.twitter.com/1HUfFVBGVU By one measure, that number is correct. But a more granular look at drug maker political money delivers a lower number, and the tweet gives no hint that Booker stopped taking pharmaceutical money in 2017. The Trump campaign sent us toBookers career summary pageon the Open Secrets website, a reliable source of federal political money data. Booker first ran for Senate in 2013. Since then, people and groups tied to the pharmaceutical/health products industry have given Booker $411,948. The number is actually higher. Booker runs a leadership PAC, a common device on Capitol Hill to raise money for a variety of uses, from travel expenses to helping other candidates fund their campaigns.Bookers PACgot $56,000 since 2014, for a grand total of $468,000. Theres an important caveat: That industry group includes much more than drug makers. Drug wholesalers, medical equipment makers and dietary supplement companies all fall under this category. The wholesalers would have a stake in bills aimed at lowering prescription drug costs, but many other companies, such as Nestl, which owns several dietary supplement brands, and Medtronic, maker of insulin pumps and much more, would go untouched by such legislation. Boiled down to drug makers alone, according to data pulled by the Open Secrets staff, Bookers total is $327,000. That includes both donations to his campaign committee and his leadership PAC. One last wrinkle would add some money back in. The Trump campaign tweet was based solely on Bookers federal receipts. But as mayor of Newark from 2006 to 2013, Bookerraised millions. Some of that came from people tied to drug makers. A notable example is Jonathan Sackler, a member of the family behindPurdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. In 2009,Sackler gave $26,000 to Booker Team for Newark, a joint campaign committee to help elect Booker and a slate of city councilors. At the end of the day, we found that drug makers gave Bookers campaigns upwards of $350,000. Thats less than the tweet claimed, but still a hefty amount. And if drug wholesalers are added in, the gap largely disappears. In June 2017, Booker told NPR he had stopped taking industry donations. We put a pause on even receiving contributions from pharma companies because it arouses so much criticism,Booker said. Recently, hetweeted, Big pharma companies need to be held criminally liable for the opioid crisis. Ive said I would not take contributions from corporate PACs, from pharma executives  they are part of this problem. Big pharma companies need to be held criminally liable for the opioid crisis. Ive said I would not take contributions from corporate PACs, from pharma executives  they are part of this problem.Its time to work on a solution. Chip in to help us run a people-powered campaign As far as his PAC money, that revenue stream has died for Booker. Up through 2016, drug makers had given him $202,000. Since then, as the chart below shows, the amount from drug makers directly is zero, with some ongoing donations from individuals who work for drug makers. New Jersey is home tomany large pharmaceutical companies, including Merck, Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Individuals who work for them have continued to give to Booker, but since 2016, that has fallen from nearly $100,000 to about $26,000. Bookers campaign noted that he joined with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on adrug importation bill. Booker also put forward legislation that would allow the Medicare program tonegotiate lower prices for prescription drugs. These and other measures have drawn strong opposition from the drug industry. The Trump campaign said that in the course of his career, Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry. The number is close. What the tweet ignores is that Booker stopped taking money from pharmaceutical industry PACs and top executives. Since 2016, Booker received zero dollars from drug makers and individual contributions have fallen by 75%. The average reader of the tweet would have no idea that Booker has shunned pharmaceutical money for the past two years. Thats additional context, but Booker did accept the money in years past. That meets our definition of Mostly True. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In September 2020, social media users began circulating a text meme charting the decrease in abortion rates in the U.S. during previous presidential administrations, attributing the greater drop in those rates during Democratic administrations to a difference in approach (i.e., making it illegal vs. making it unnecessary):     As we noted in an earlier article on a similar topic, following the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that protected a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction, the abortion rate rose immediately afterward until it peaked in the 1980s, and it has fairly consistently declined since that peak through presidential administrations of both parties: article Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace.     Although it is true that the abortion rate has experienced greater declines during Democratic administrations than Republican ones, we can't draw any definitive conclusion that, as the meme tries to suggest, this difference is primarily due to varying approaches by the two main political parties. The simple idea presented by the meme has a number of flaws, chief among them that political factors that might influence the abortion rate (e.g., policies, legislation, judicial appointments and rulings) do not neatly conform to presidential terms of office -- what takes place during one administration generally continues to have an effect throughout subsequent administrations. As well, events occurring at state and local levels (not necessarily directly tied to federal actions) can have a substantial impact on the availability and prevalence of abortions. More important, though, is that we cannot definitively determine to what extent political factors influence the abortion rate. As the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion-rights research organization) observed, recent declines in the abortion rate appear to have been driven not primarily by abortion restrictions but by a broader decline in pregnancies: observed Abortion restrictions target either individuals ability to access the procedure (such as by imposing coercive waiting periods and counseling requirements) or providers ability to offer it (such as through unnecessary and intentionally burdensome regulations). Any one of these restrictions could result in some people being forced to continue pregnancies they were seeking to end; this could, in theory, lower the abortion rate. With the available evidence, it is impossible to pinpoint exactly which factors drove recent declines, and to what degree. However, previous Guttmacher analyses have documented that abortion restrictions, while incredibly harmful at an individual level, were not the main driver of national declines in the abortion rate ... Rather, the decline in abortions appears to be part of a broader decline in pregnancies, as evidenced by fewer births over the same period. What's driving that decline in pregnancies, then? We don't know that for sure, either, but likely a combination of social, cultural, economic, medical, and political factors: combination Experts say the decline isnt due to a single cause, but rather a combination of several factors, including changing economics, delays in childbirth by women pursuing jobs and education, the greater availability of contraception, and a decline in teen pregnancies. The trend seen in the United States is also seen in much of the developed world, including Western Europe, said Dr. John Rowe, a professor at Columbia Universitys Mailman School of Public Health. One important factor driving this is the changing roles of women in society, Rowe said. In general women are getting married later in life, he explained. They are leaving the home and launching their families later. [Dr. Helen Kim, an associate professor at Northwestern Universitys Feinberg School of Medicine] said the concept of the ideal family size may be changing. There are shifts where having smaller families is a trend, she added. I cant speak on this as a sociologist, but this is what Ive seen among my peers and colleagues. One of the biggest factors is the decline in teen pregnancies, Rowe said. Thats good news ... And that makes a huge difference to their lives. The Guttmacher Institute posited a similar mix of factors to explain the decline in the abortion rate: Because both abortions and births [have] declined, it is clear that there were fewer pregnancies overall in the United States ... The big question is why. One possible contributing factor is contraceptive access and use. Since 2011, contraception has become more accessible, as most private health insurance plans are now required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket costs. In addition, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and private insurance coverage under the ACA, the proportion of women aged 1544 nationwide who were uninsured dropped more than 40% between 2013 and 2017. There is evidence that use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods -- specifically IUDs and implants -- increased through at least 2014, especially among women in their early 20s, a population that accounts for a significant proportion of all abortions Another possible contributing factor might be a decline in sexual activity. Findings from one national survey suggest a long-term increase in the number of people in the United States -- mostly younger men -- reporting not having sex in the past year. Yet another possibility is that infertility is increasing in the United States, thereby reducing the chances of getting pregnant and subsequently seeking to obtain an abortion. More generally, there are a host of other potential factors that could be driving declines in pregnancy rates, from individuals evolving desires about whether and when to become parents to peoples changing economic and social circumstances. Finally, it is possible that ... there could have been an increase in self-managed abortions happening outside of medical facilities, which the census would be unable to capture. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also offered a combination of potential explanations for lower abortion rates: combination Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. As we stated four years ago, "causation between the presidency and abortion rates [is] difficult to demonstrate in any case, because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement." That observation remains true today. Carroll, Linda and Shamard Charles, M.D.  "Americans Aren't Making Enough Babies to Replace Ourselves."
  NBC News.  13 January 2019. Nash, Elizabeth and Joerg Dreweke.  "The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver."
  Guttmacher Institute.  18 September 2019. Kasprak, Alex.  "Abortion Rates Fall During Democratic Administrations and Rise During Republican Ones."
  Snopes.com.  11 November 2016. Claim:  President Obama has canceled July 4 celebrations at U.S. military bases to save money. OUTDATED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] Supposedly the president has cancelled 4th of July celebrations for the troops on military bases to save money.   Origins:  This item about President Obama's having cancelled Independence Day celebrations at U.S. military bases scheduled for 4 July 2013 began circulating a few days before that holiday.  It is true that some of the U.S. military bases which typically stage larger July 4 shows cut back or canceled their 4th of July celebrations that year, but those bases individually chose to do so due to budgetary constraints, not because President Obama directed all U.S. bases to skip celebrating Independence Day that year to "save money." The mandatory $85 billion budget cut imposed by sequestration as of March 2013  an outcome for which Congress and the President shared some measure of blame due to their inability to resolve deficit reduction issues  affected many federal departments, including the military.  Therefore, some U.S. military bases had to make the choice of scrapping annual fireworks shows (which can cost upwards of $100,000) or other Independence Day events in order to allocate funds to more vital areas:  sequestration The Fourth of July won't have a patriotic boom in the sky over some military bases because budget cuts and furloughed workers also mean furloughed fireworks. Independence Day celebrations have been canceled at the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base and at the Army's Fort Bragg, both in North Carolina. The annual July Fourth celebration also has been scrapped at the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Ga. The reason is money  namely the lack of it. The failure in Washington to follow up a 2011 budget pact with additional spending cuts meant $85 billion across-the-board cuts that began  in March. Budgets tightened, the military took a major hit and many federal workers absorbed pay cuts through forced furloughs. When the decision was made to forgo fireworks at Camp Lejeune, the commanding general, Brig. Gen. Thomas Gorry, said the cancellation would "ensure that we can mitigate the fiscal challenges we are currently facing." Last year's Independence Day at the base cost about $100,000, including $25,000 for the fireworks. The big issue is paying the overtime to personnel for security, transportation, logistics and safety. Base officials said they couldn't justify paying overtime when federal workers are losing pay while furloughed. Marines and their families at Lejeune will instead be able to participate in some free activities  golf, bowling, skeet shooting, archery and movies. Other bases that are canceling ceremonies to mark the nation's birthday:  Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina, where the annual Jammin' July 4th put on by the 20th Fighter Wing at Shaw and local city and county officials has been scrapped. The base plans a smaller "freedom bash" on July 3 with pool games, face painting and bouncy castles.   The Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii, which is scaling back by canceling the fireworks and instead hosting a daytime celebration featuring the Pacific Fleet Band and the Air Force Band of the Pacific.  New Jersey's Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. Last updated:  8 June 2015    Kerr, Jennifer C.   "A Fourth of July with No Fireworks for Some Military Bases."   The Washington Post.  1 July 2013. Claim:  Article contrasts observances of the passings of Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, and Michael Jackson.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2009] Ed McMahon died this week. He was a great entertainer, but prior to his stage accomplishments he was a distinguished Marine Corps fighter pilot in WWII earning six Air Medals and attaining the rank of Colonel. He was discharged in 1946 and was later promoted to the rank of Brigadier General in the CA Air National Guard. Farrah Fawcett died this week after a long career in Hollywood as an actress. After she was diagnosed with cancer, she became an activist for cancer treatment and devoted her last remaining years encouraging people to seek treatment. She documented her plight on film and used it to encourage others to stay positive and upbeat despite their diagnosis and suffering. Michael Jackson died this week. He was perhaps one of the greatest singers of modern time. He will also be remembered for his eccentric lifestyle that included sleeping with a chimpanzee, living in a carnival-like atmosphere at Neverland, his fascination with Peter Pan, and his numerous masks and costumes. He also admitted to finding pleasure sleeping with young boys and paying out millions of dollars in settlements to the families of these boys despite being acquitted by a court on one allegation of sexual molestation. QUESTION - Which of the above did the House of Representatives declare a moment of silence for today? (Hint - It wasn't the first two.) QUESTION - Which of the above's family received a personal note of condolence from President Obama? (Hint - It wasn't the first two.) Need we say more? Variations:  A later version of this item included the following bit about actor Karl Malden (who died on 1 July 2009): Karl Malden died this week after a long career in Hollywood as an actor. He also served in the US Air Force during WWII and also served on the US Postal Service committee to review and recommend commemorative stamps.  In 2005, the US House of Representatives authorized the US Postal Service to rename a Los Angeles post office the Karl Malden Postal Station. Origins:  The entertainment world suffered a triple shock at the end of June 2009, when television personality Ed McMahon passed away on the 23rd of that month, a loss followed two days later by the deaths of both actress Farrah Fawcett and singer Michael Jackson.   It is true that Ed McMahon was a veteran, a decorated U.S. Marine Corps pilot who served his country during both World War II and the Korean War.  It is also true that after Farrah Fawcett was diagnosed with cancer in 2006, she became "an outspoken advocate for early detection and  treatment of cancer" and "worked tirelessly to raise the profile of this disease," bravely allowing herself to be filmed for the harrowing Farrah's Story, a documentary that chronicled her grim fight against cancer in order to "make viewers aware of the need for testing and research." Farrah's Story It is also true that neither of these celebrities was honored in their passing with the observance of a moment of silence in the U.S. Congress, and that (as far as we know) neither's family was the recipient of a personal note of condolence from the President.  In contrast, the day after Michael Jackson's death, the House of Representatives observed a moment of silence in the entertainer's honor, and a few days later senior presidential adviser David Axelrod stated that President Obama had written to the Jackson family and "shared his feelings" with them. observed stated However, many would take exception to the implication that Michael Jackson was merely an eccentric entertainer who, unlike Ed McMahon and Farrah Fawcett, did nothing (outside of his art) to benefit society and make him (as) worthy of the honors and recognition he received at his passing.  Michael Jackson left behind a substantial philanthropic legacy, having contributed for over twenty-five years to a long, long list of charities through donations of his time, money, and other forms of support.  As the Los Angeles Times Michael Jackson left a philanthropic legacy almost as large as his cultural one. In all the financial and personal turmoil that characterized his latter years, it was easy to lose sight of the fact that he was a pioneer not only in popular music but also in charitable fundraising within the entertainment industry. Jackson, like his close friend Elizabeth Taylor, was one of the first entertainers to enlist in the fight against AIDS/HIV, and he went on to contribute and raise hundreds of millions of dollars to help sick children, set up scholarship funds, and to find new ways for entertainers to raise money and awareness for causes. He also helped set the standard of generosity for other entertainers, particularly pop stars. His song "We Are the World," which he co-wrote with Lionel Richie in 1985 to help combat famine in Africa, was instrumental in changing the way rock stars generate funds for the causes to which they're devoted. Before the financial woes that haunted him in recent years, Jackson was one of the industry's most formidable philanthropists.  Jackson's estate is expected to generate hundreds of millions of dollars more over the years to come. If the will currently being treated by the courts as valid is sustained, it appears that at least 20% of the income on the trust that Jackson directed his executors establish will go to charity. A detailed list of Michael Jackson's many charitable efforts can be found here. here Last updated:  9 July 2009    Gerstein, Josh.  "Obama Sends Condolence Letter to Jackson Family."   Politico.  28 June 2009.    Koppelman, Alex.  "On House Floor, A Moment of Silence for Michael Jackson."   Salon.  26 June 2009.    O'Neil, Tom.  "Farrah Fawcett's TV Cancer Confession May Be Emmy-Worthy."   Los Angeles Times.  7 May 2009.    Ventre, Michael.  "'Farrah's Story' a Tale of Inner Strength."   msnbc.com.  22 May 2009.