Is the IRS confiscating the bank accounts of innocent Americans?
Claim:   The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is seizing bank accounts from innocent American citizens under civil forfeiture laws. : Civil forfeiture laws enable law enforcement agents and the government to seize the assets of Americans who are neither guilty nor even suspected of any wrongdoing.      Civil forfeiture laws are new or exclusive to the IRS.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Just read a Facebook post.  It was an article regarding the IRS seizing bank accounts of innocent American citizens who have done nothing criminally wrong.  Inspite of the problems this has caused individuals the IRS seems relatively unconcerned except they want to collect money for whatever reasons.  Is this true?  Does the IRS have the right to just take the money of American citizens from their accounts? Are they an acting collections agency for the government now? I found this article a tad disturbing to say the least. Thank you for amy information you might have regarding this article and subject matter. Origins:  On 5 October 2014, the issue of civil forfeiture  and its effects on American citizens entered the spotlight after HBO host John Oliver addressed the matter at length on his show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. During the segment, Oliver and guest Jeff Goldblum focused on seemingly arbitrary, unfair, and corrupt civil forfeiture practices allegedly perpetrated by law enforcement agents in a number of jurisdictions.  Oliver's civil forfeiture segment sparked a number of conversations about the laws surrounding confiscation of assets under related laws. Then, on 25 October 2014, the New York Times profiled an individual who claimed the IRS had seized more than $30,000 in assets from her checking account under laws meant to ensnare drug cartels and organized criminals: For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away  until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000. The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes  in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report. Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up. It seems Hinders' run-in with the IRS was triggered by her practice of keeping deposits under the mandated reporting threshold of $10,000. Deposits that exceed $10,000 must be reported to the government under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, but Hinders told the Times that she believed large deposits created unnecessary paperwork for bank employees: Bank Secrecy Act My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork. I didn't actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.   Former federal prosecutor David Smith, an expert on such seizures, told the paper that the practice of civil forfeiture has shifted to focus on individuals not historically targeted by such laws: They're going after people who are really not criminals. They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.   Richard Weber, Chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, described the seizures as "structuring" related, referring to suspicion triggered by a large number of deposits near the $10,000 threshold for reporting under the Bank Secrecy Act. In response to sudden interest in the IRS's policies regarding "structuring cases," Weber issued a statement indicating the IRS will curtail its seizure activities in cases where no crime is suspected: statement After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year and in order to provide consistency throughout the country (between our field offices and the U.S. attorney offices) regarding our policies, I.R.S.-C.I. will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with "legal source" structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the seizure and forfeiture and the case has been approved at the director of field operations (D.F.O.) level. While the act of structuring  whether the funds are from a legal or illegal source  is against the law, I.R.S.-C.I. special agents will use this act as an indicator that further illegal activity may be occurring. This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.'s mission and key priorities. The policy involving seizure and forfeiture in "illegal source" structuring cases will remain the same.   The IRS is just one of several agencies engaging in civil forfeiture, and Oliver's segment also addressed its application by local and regional law enforcement:  Prior to Oliver's segment and the Times' profile, civil forfeiture practices had been extensively profiled in the media: In general, you needn't be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with "probable cause" is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner's guilt or innocence. One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. "The protections our Constitution usually affords are out the window," Louis Rulli, a clinical law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading forfeiture expert, observes. A piece of property does not share the rights of a person. There's no right to an attorney and, in most states, no presumption of innocence. Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve. Although the IRS has pledged to restrict its civil forfeiture activity to mainly "illegal source" cases, the practice is not limited to the tax agency and remains legal. Last updated:  28 October 2014    Stillman, Sarah.  "Taken."   The New Yorker.  12 August 2013.
In May 2021, news articles and widely-shared social media posts reported that an Ohio State Senator had been caught driving during an official Zoom video conference, and even used a fake "office" background. Ohio On May 6, Brody Logan, a reporter at the NBC affiliate KSEE in Fresno, California, posted a short video to Twitter, along with the following text: text "This Ohio State Senator thought he was slick, using a Zoom background of his home office while driving... debating a bill for harsher penalties for distracted driving..."      Similarly, Newsweek published an article with the headline "Ohio Senator Uses Zoom Office Background While Driving During Hearing on Distracted Driving Bill." The report went on: Newsweek An Ohio state Republican senator participated in a virtual Zoom meeting regarding distracted driving legislation while using an office background as he drove his vehicle this week. During the 13-minute meeting of the Ohio Controlling Board on Monday, State Senator Andrew Brenner could be seen fiddling with his phone, while also turning his camera on and off as he drove with the office background displayed. Andrew Brenner did drive during the Zoom call, and he did use a fake "office" background. However, the meeting had nothing to do with distracting driving, which was an important component of much of the commentary surrounding the incident, since it provided a significant element of irony. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "Mixture." The incident in question took place during the May 3, 2021 meeting of the Ohio Controlling Board, a body that provides legislative oversight of statewide spending, procurement and investment in Ohio.  body The video can be watched in full on the Ohio Channel website, here.  here When Brenner first appears, he is clearly sitting in a parked car, not wearing a seatbelt:   He disappears from view for a short while, then reappears, this time with his camera zoomed in on his face. Around the 3:30 mark, his background abruptly shifts from his car, to a fake "office":   Brenner then disappears from view again, and when he becomes visible again around one minute later, he can clearly be seen driving the car, with his seatbelt on, and the "office" backdrop still in place:   In an interview with the Columbus Dispatch, Brenner admitted he was driving during the meeting, but denied being distracted: Columbus Dispatch "I wasn't distracted. I was paying attention to the driving and listening to it (the meeting,)" Brenner said. "I had two meetings that were back to back that were in separate locations. And I've actually been on other calls, numerous calls, while driving. Phone calls for the most part but on video calls, I'm not paying attention to the video. To me, it's like a phone call." On the same day as the Ohio Controlling Board meeting took place, May 3, Republicans in the state house introduced House Bill 283, which would enhance and expand Ohio's existing prohibition against distracted driving and using electronic devices while driving. House Bill 283 However, after watching the full Ohio Controlling Board meeting from that day, as well as checking its agenda, it's clear that none of the participants even mentioned House Bill 283, specifically, or distracted driving more broadly. That particular claim, as made by Newsweek and Logan, was inaccurate.  agenda Claim:  Photographs show businesses that posted "A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders" signs. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008]  Origins:  Skewering a political candidate with an apropos comment is a time-honored way of making a point. Of late, we're seeing this tradition expand into the online world of blogs and message boards but also into the offline world via signage on businesses. The sign pictured above was displayed outside the Mandeville, Louisiana, office of State Farm Insurance agent Bud Gregg.  The sign actually bore different legends on each side, one side displaying the "chicken" message shown above and the other side referencing an apocryphal quote attributed to Senator Obama about his hoping to change "the greatest nation in the history of the world": change  A State Farm representative said that Bud Gregg's office sign bore these messages until 3 July 2008 and that the company had requested the sign be removed as soon as they became aware of it because the sign was inconsistent with State Farm's policy of not endorsing candidates or taking sides in political campaigns. Both signs are reminiscent of the KFC offering lampooning Senator Hillary Clinton. KFC offering However, although this particular insurance vendor posted the "like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders" billboard, he most certainly wasn't the first to get off this zinger. That withering assessment has been leveled at numerous U.S. and Canadian politicians over the years: [Moseley, October 2004] If you are on Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, a baby-boomer, unemployed, a minority, parent with school-aged children, a college student, without medical insurance, balancing your personal budget, not a CEO, purchasing gasoline, wanting clean air and water, a 401-K owner or earn less than $200,000 per year, then voting for George Bush is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.  [Carville, January 2003] The previous highest-ranking black official was Mr. JC Watts from Oklahoma. Do you know what his own father said? A black person voting for a Republican would be like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.  [Charleston Daily Mail, October 1996] Any hardworking person who votes Republican is like the chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.  [Rogers, March 1996] When workers voted for Mike Harris [Premier of Ontario, 1995-2002], it was like the chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.  [United Press International, October 1984] A working man voting for Reagan is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.  [Waters, November 1982] For all that, Brinkley got off the evening's snappiest line: "Auto workers voting for Republicans this year are like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders."  [Feinstein, October 1982] [Michael] Barnes told the gathering of about 150 union leaders and members that "for a working man or woman in this country to vote Republican in 1982 would be a like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."  [Sheppard, October 1978] Mr. [Steven] Langdon [NDP candidate in Ottawa Centre riding] told an audience that for Ottawa Centre to vote Tory [Progressive Conservative] is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. One of Bud Gregg's messages inspired a realtor in Texas to post the same sentiment on a sign outside his business:  Bob Costilow, the owner of Bob Costilow Realtors in Nederland, Texas, said he was appalled by the capital gains tax portion of Senator Obama's tax plan. "I saw it (i.e., the "chicken" saying) in an e-mail on a sign put up by a State Farm agent in Mandeville, Louisiana," he said. "I loved it. I have gotten some calls about it, and some of them were even congratulatory in nature." Barbara "inspiration point" Mikkelson Update:   An e-mail circulated in October 2008 falsely claimed that we contacted neither Bud Gregg nor State Farm about this subject.  FactCheck.org has verified that the e-mail was false. Update:   An e-mail circulated in October 2008 falsely claimed that we contacted neither Bud Gregg nor State Farm about this subject.  FactCheck.org has verified that the e-mail was false. verified Last updated:  10 April 2009    Feinstein, John.  "Mondale Is Democrats' Heavy Artillery in Md."   The Washington Post.  20 October 1982  (p. A20).    Ferraro, Thomas.  "Washington News."   United Press International.  11 October 1984.    Hayes, Greg.  "Realtor's Expression of Political Opinion Doesn't Set Well with Passerby."   Beaumont Enterprise.  17 July 2008.    Heathcock, Jennifer.  "Political Message Strikes Chord with Some Southeast Texans."   KFDM-TV [Beaumont, TX].  23 July 2008.    Kotz, Pete.  "The Enemy Within."   Cleveland Scene.  3 March 2004.    Moseley, Don.  "Letter: Vote for Colonel Sanders."   Farmington Daily Times.  26 October 2004  (p. A9).    Rogers, Linda.  "Stop Tearing Each Other Down."   The Toronto Star.  8 March 1996  (p. A20).    Sheppard, Robert.  "Anti-Liberal Feelings Haunt Mackasey."   The Globe and Mail.  7 October 1978.    Waters, Harry.  "Winning the Viewers' Votes."   Newsweek.  15 November 1982  (p. 55).    Charleston Daily Mail.  "Readers' Vent Line."   11 October 1996  (p. D5). Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal have become something of a team, delivering a one-two punch for various economic development projects in Georgia, including metro Atlanta. Although the two line up on opposite sides of the political aisle, they have managed to put the D and R aside to work together on getting funding for Georgia ports, get a new football stadium built and get Porsche to move its North American headquarters close to Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. The relationship hascaught the eyeof politicos far and near as an example of how leadership should work. But that hasnt always been the case. And Reed noted this last month during the Governing Georgia Leadership Forum in downtown Atlanta. My office is about a 300-step walk to the governor's office, Reed said. But you would have thought previously that walk was a 10k. PolitiFact Georgia is always looking for an opportunity for a little fun and exercise. So we grabbed our pedometer and set out for a walk. At the Leadership Forum, Reed and Deal were co-presenters for a 30-minute session titled Shared Fortunes -- Building a Better Georgia. The description of the discussion said: the state's governor, a Republican, and the mayor of its largest city, a Democrat, discuss how they are working together to advance a common agenda. And to work together you have to be together. And being together includes office visits, so we set out to check the distance between them. Not depending on our math alone, we got out a pedometer for a more accurate step count. We walked the path from Reeds office in Atlanta City Hall to Deals office on the main floor of the Georgia State Capitol, and back again, twice. We began walking at a normal pace. But the mayor stands at 6feet, a full six inches taller than this PolitiFact Georgia reporter, so we extended our stride a bit. Our calculations found that Reed was correct. The distance from the governors office to the first step outside City Hall was 300 steps. Throw in the distance from the outside City Hall steps to Reeds actual office and the step count increases between 65 and 100 steps, depending on the route through the lobby, whether you take a short ramp or the few steps up to the main office level, and stride of the walker. To sum up, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed said his office was about 300 steps from Gov. Nathan Deals office. Walking the path that the mayor is likely to take, it is 300 steps from Deals office to the bottom of the first step of Atlanta City Hall, where Reeds office is located. Walking all the way to the receptionist that sits just outside the mayors office adds additional steps, based on our calculations, which could make the mayors claim off by about one-third. Reeds overall point was that the political divide between he and Deal has closed. Based on their history of delivering economic development projects for the city and state, that statement is correct. But the mayor is off just a bit on his distance claim if you take his statement literally. We rated Reeds claim Mostly True. Bell peppers come in a variety of sizes and colors, and, according to a popular internet rumor, a variety of genders as well:  This old cook's tale about identifying the gender of bell peppers has been around for years, but it has recently seen an uptick in Internet interest on social media sites such as Pinterest. But no matter how many times the above-displayed image is shared, it will not change the fact that a bell pepper's sex cannot be determined by the number of bumps on its outer surface  in large part because peppers aren't classifiable as being wholly one sex or the other: Pinterest A section on the reproductive biology of peppers in The Encyclopedia of Fruit and Nuts notes that bell peppers come from flowers possessing both male and female sex organs: "Pepper flowers are complete and perfect, that is they have a calyx, corolla and male and female sex organs. The flowers are protogynous, but readily self-pollinate." notes David Karp, a pomologist at UC Riverside, also addressed the rumor of bell pepper gender in 2013: "The supposition that there are male and female peppers is a common canard, but untrue. Peppers grow from flowers that have both male and female parts. The fruits do not have a gender." addressed While bell peppers are neither male nor female, some food blogs have insisted there is still some usefulness to this widespread rumor. For example, the Garden Frugal writes that while it is not scientifically accurate to label bell peppers male or female, assigning a gender may help cooks remember how to choose the right peppers: writes Describing peppers as a gender is not accurate, because bell peppers are hermaphroditic. The gender reference is used only as a memory aid to help select the best bell pepper for each purpose either eating raw, seed collection, or for cooking. There is a simple method for identifying which bell pepper has the traits you desire. Peppers with four lobes are female and those with three lobes are male. The female peppers with more lobes, contain more seeds are best for seed collecting and growing new plants (hence female). They are also sweeter when eaten raw. The male peppers with three or fewer lobes are better for grilling, cooking. They also contain fewer seeds. But this claim is also unfounded, as the number of lobes on a pepper does not have any bearing on its taste. And while it could be argued a four-lobed pepper has more seeds than a three-lobed pepper, this has more to do with the overall size of the fruit than the number of lobes. In early April 2021, Snopes readers asked us to investigate rumors that U.S. President Joe Biden's administration was coming around to the idea of a continuous wall between Mexico and the U.S. and considering restarting construction on it. Among entities that highlighted the claim was Charlie Kirk's conservative political group, Turning Point USA. Via statements like the below-displayed Facebook post, the group and other Biden critics attempted to frame the rumor as evidence of the president's alleged hypocrisy; he had promised not to build "another foot of wall" during his 2020 presidential campaign. Charlie Kirk below-displayed Facebook post another foot of wall   While it was false to claim the Biden administration had warmed up to the border wall as a solution to immigration problems, it was true that funding was allowed for "limited construction" (via unspecified congressional actions) to occur during the Biden presidency, according to The White House. Below, we lay out evidence for those conclusions. First, the claim surfaced after Biden issued an executive order on Jan. 20 pausing a stream of federal funding toward border-wall construction initiated by former President Donald Trump. Trump had framed the multi-billion-dollar spending as a necessary step to curb illegal border crossings by people fleeing poor living conditions in Central American nations. By contrast, Biden dubbed the concept "a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security." executive order dubbed As of Jan. 15, 2021, the government had spent $6.1 billion of the $10.8 billion in work it signed contracts to have done, according to a Senate Democratic aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity to The Associated Press (AP). Around that time, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency that oversees border security and operations, said the wall, in total, spanned 771 miles, including vehicle barriers and pedestrian fencing  about one-third of the length of the entire border. The Associated Press said Biden's executive order halted "immediately the obligation of funds related to construction of the southern border wall, to the extent permitted by law," and required his administration to determine the cost of cancelling in-process construction contracts and whether the money could be spent elsewhere, according to the order and news reports. news reports Cut to April 5, when the Washington Times, a conservative-leaning news outlet, published an article titled, "EXCLUSIVE: Biden's DHS may restart border wall construction to plug 'gaps'." The reporting was based on notes supposedly documenting a meeting the previous week between Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees. article Alejandro Mayorkas It was unclear, based on The Washington Times report, when or under what circumstances the purported meeting took place, as well as how the media outlet obtained the notes. No reputable news outlet -- such as The Associated Press or Reuters -- reported on the alleged conversation about filling in "gaps" at the border wall (aside from Business Insider, which primarily recirculated The Washington Times' reporting). Business Insider According to the purported notes, Mayorkas said CBP leaders have submitted proposals for "different projects" along the border wall because officials supposedly have the opportunity to finish or update certain areas. Here's his full quote in The Washington Times: 'The president has communicated quite clearly his decision that the emergency that triggered the devotion of DOD funds to the construction of the border wall is ended. But that leaves room to make decisions as the administration, as part of the administration, in particular areas of the wall that need renovation, particular projects that need to be finished,' he said. He said those parts include 'gaps,' 'gates,' and areas 'where the wall has been completed but the technology has not been implemented.' Put another way, despite Biden's order to stop pumping emergency dollars into the project, Mayorkas purportedly said an unidentified sum of money could still be used to repair or update certain areas. Such construction could include gates or technology improvements, according to his alleged comments. order It is unclear how, or under what congressional action or work contract, border officials could legally access said funding for the potential construction. We reached out to agencies including the White House and DHS for clarity on that legality, and we did not receive a response. We will update this report when, or if, we do. During daily press briefings on April 6 and 7, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed previously approved congressional actions set aside funding for "some components of the wall" and "limited construction." Her comments did not explain the nature of that construction, nor when it would take place. Here's the verbatim transcription of her statement on April 6, according to an official White House transcript and C-SPAN video recording of the media event: White House transcript C-SPAN video Wall construction remains paused, to the extent permitted by law. So some has already been funded through a congressional authorization and funding allocation. But as agencies develop for a plan  its paused while agencies are developing a plan for the President on the management of the federal funds.  When the administration took office, as you referenced, funds had been diverted from congressionally appropriated military construction projects and other appropriated purposes toward building the wall. And wall construction was being challenged in multiple lawsuits  and for much of the wall, I should say; not all of it  by plaintiffs who allege serious environmental and safety issues.  Under those circumstances, federal agencies are continuing to review wall contracts and develop a plan to submit to the President soon. It is  it is paused. There is some limited construction that has been funded and allocated for, but it is otherwise paused. The following day, she reiterated the same points, stressing the administration's overall opposition to the border-wall concept, according to C-SPAN and a White House transcript.  C-SPAN White House transcript "There are some components of the wall that had already been allocated," she said. "We dont believe the wall is an answer. We have never believed the wall as an answer to addressing the challenges  immigration challenges at the border.  Theres a review underway of, kind of, where this funding had been allocated and not, but its currently paused and  for the most part." Meanwhile, criticism of the Biden administration's alleged participation in border-wall construction surfaced among progressives. U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, tweeted on April 7: "It's shameful and unacceptable for @POTUS to continue the construction of Trump's xenophobic and racist wall." tweeted @POTUS  In sum, the nature of the "limited construction" that could still take place on the wall under the Biden administration is unknown -- no evidence showed it would extend the barrier's length. For that reason, and those listed above, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. 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:  The Coen brothers have announced plans to begin filming a Big Lebowski sequel in January 2015.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Are they really making The Big Lebowski 2?   Origins:  On 10 September 2014, the National Report web site published an article positing that the Oscar-winning directorial duo of Joel and Ethan Coen had announced plans to begin filming a sequel to their popular 1998 film, The Big Lebowski, in January 2015: Exciting news for Big Lebowski fans around the world as a sequel to the cult classic has just been announced. Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, directors of the first Lebowski movie, confirmed with E! Online they will both be returning to direct the sequel. "We're thrilled to be coming back to film a second part to this classic movie," Ethan Coen said. "For years we've been staying away from doing this project but when we received this new script and the cast fell into place, it was a no-brainer. We just had to do it." By the following day links and excerpts referencing this item were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the article mistaking it for a genuine news item.  However, the article was just another bit of misinformation from the National Report,  a fake news site that publishes sensational, made-up stories such as "15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism," "Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say," and "Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6." 15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6 The National Report's disclaimer page notes that all of the site's articles are fiction: disclaimer National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways.  All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news.  Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental.   In reality, the Coen brothers proclaimed once again at the 2013 Cannes Film Festival that they had no interest in producing a Big Lebowski follow-up film: proclaimed Bummer, man  the Dude won't abide again. There will be no sequel to The Big Lebowski. That's the final word on the subject from filmmaking brothers Joel and Ethan Coen, during a press day at the Cannes Film Festival for their new film, Inside Llewyn Davis. Despite a growing fanbase for the cult 1998 comedy about Jeff Bridges' hippie bowler character Jeff "The Dude" Lebowski, and clamor for a sequel, the writer/director duo aren't interested in revisiting the past  even though actors in the film, Bridges among them, are keen to reprise their roles. "John Turturro, who wants it, talks to us incessantly about doing a sequel about his (bowler) character Jesus," Ethan Coen said. "He even has the story worked out, which he's pitched to us a few times, but I can't really remember it ... "No, I don't see it in our future." Joel Coen was even firmer: I don't think it's going to happen ... I just don't like sequels."   Last updated:  21 October 2015 Claim:  Photograph shows Michelle Obama serving a government funded soup kitchen meal to a person with an expensive cell phone. REAL PHOTOGRAPH; INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] Recently Michelle Obama went to serve food to the homeless at a government funded soup kitchen.   Cost of a bowl of soup at homeless shelter: $0.00 dollars Having Michelle Obama Serve you your soup: $0.00 dollars Snapping a picture of a homeless person who is receiving a government funded meal while taking a picture of the first lady using his $500 Black Berry cell phone and $100.00 per month cellular service: Priceless      Origins:  The above-displayed photograph is genuine, a snapshot taken on an occasion in March 2009 when Michelle Obama spent some time serving lunch to men and women at Miriam's Kitchen, a social service agency in Washington D.C., as part of the First Lady's effort to "spotlight local organizations, connect with the city and help those in need amid the economic crisis."   However, all the assumptions and implications of the text accompanying this picture are incorrect or unsubstantiated.  To wit:  The photograph does not depict anyone "receiving a government funded meal": Miriam's Kitchen is a privately funded organization with the goal of "providing individualized services that address the causes andconsequences of homelessness in an atmosphere of dignity and respect"; it is not government run or taxpayer funded. Miriam's Kitchen  A cell phone capable of capturing images (even a BlackBerry Pearl) is not necessarily a "$500 phone" with a "$100 per month cellular service."  Many much more affordable options are available, including cellular providers who give free phones to low-income customers under the Lifeline assistance program.  So a homeless person might very well carry a cell phone, as Scott Schenkelberg, the Executive Director of Miriam's Kitchen, observed when questioned about this photograph during an interview: BlackBerry Pearl affordable Lifeline interview Q: Since the First Lady's visit, both your guests and your food have been the subject of some criticism within the blogosphere. For example, some critics noted thatone of your guests had a cell phone and suggested that it was inappropriate to serve free food to someone who could afford a cell phone.  A: I suspect some people don't understand how inexpensive cell phones are, or how critical they are to this population. These days, you can purchase a cell phone at 7-11 for $10, then pay for minutes as you go. Our clients have a very fragile safety net. Many of them don't have shelter and are extremely vulnerable. For them, cell phones could literally be a lifeline. If they're looking for a job, the cell phone would also be incredibly important  can you even imagine trying to apply for a job without a phone number? Cell phones simply aren't luxuries anymore. If a guest can scrape together some money to purchase a cell phone, I think that's wonderful.  The assumption that a truly homeless person wouldn't have (or couldn't afford) a cell phone is also a mistaken one.  As Scott Schenkelberg noted, the ranks of the homeless served by organizations such as Miriam's Kitchen include not just the long-term, chronically homeless, but also the "newly homeless":  those who had recently been getting by economically until a sudden job loss or other reversal left them with nowhere to go: Until recently, we served mostly the chronically homeless, people who had fallen out of the economy long ago. More recently, we've been seeing more new faces, people who just fell into homelessness or other hard times. These people are generally high-functioning individuals who were hurt by the poor economy. It's very troubling to see previously self-sufficient people coming to Miriam's Kitchen in such high numbers. Last updated:  16 June 2009    Sweet, Lynn.  "Can Michelle Influence what We Eat, Too?"   Chicago Sun-Times.  6 March 2009  (p. C10).    Associated Press.  "First Lady Puts Service on the Menu."   The Australian.  7 March 2009. An entreaty to help save the life of a victimized child who had been raped by an AIDS-positive attacker began circulating as a cell phone text message in June 2010. At that time, the message being zinged from phone to phone represented the rapist being sought with a photograph of an African American male bearing gold teeth: This guy raped a five year old little girl. He ruined her life, she is alive & in the hospital can't move and can never have children, or a normal life. This guy goes by different names he is in hiding & has AIDS. The girl came out positive. Please help us catch this animal. Every time this message is fwd the Dell Hospital will donate $.15 to Maria's medication & treatment. Please don't hesitate to fwd this. It could've been you're daughter or sister. God bless. Thank you!. Forward this to as many people as possible. In October 2010, the hoax underwent a revival when it was circulated anew, that time accompanied by the photo of a Hispanic male sporting multiple tattoos. Since 2014, this Facebook post has been shared more than 77,000 times. A second post from 2016 has been shared more than 82,000 times with a different photograph: this Facebook post second post   There was no such child: the whole thing was a leg-pull, said Dell Children's Medical Center of Central Texas: said A false text message has been circulating that describes an incident involving a 5-year old girl. The message states that every time you forward it to someone, Dell Children's Medical Center will donate 15 cents to cover the child's healthcare expenses. This message is spam and is in no way affiliated with Dell Children's Medical Center or the Seton Family of Hospitals. If you receive this message, please delete it. As demonstrated so aptly by public efforts to provide relief to earthquake victims in Haiti, beneficences initiated by cell phone generally involve a tracking and billing mechanism that requires participants to text a specific short word or phrase to a particular (five-digit) number, not the willy-nilly forwarding of a explanatory narrative to as many people as possible. Haiti In 2009 we began to note that "Forward this message to help fund medical care for a sick or dying child" appeals were beginning to appear as cell phone text messages as well as being passed in e-mail. That trend continues into the present, with the "shot 14-year-old boy" just another iteration of the same basic hoax that falsely claims the American Cancer Society, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, or some other large entity will donate a predetermined amount of money every time a particular message is forwarded. Such leg-pulls have been circulating via e-mail since 1997. hoax Typically, a large charity is named as the benefactor standing ready to direct monies towards the costs of medical care for the languishing child, but various corporations have also been fingered for this role in other iterations of the hoax, such as AOL and ZDNet in the Rachel Arlington leg pull (brain cancer sufferer in need of an operation) and McDonald's and Pizza Hut in the Justin Mallory prank (epileptic in need of long-term care). Rachel Arlington Justin Mallory Everyone wants to help sick children get better, and the thought of a little boy or girl suffering from some dread disease or infirmity because people couldn't be bothered to forward a message tugs straight at the heartstrings. Problem is, hoaxsters know that, and they play upon these very human drives for their personal amusement. Once again, that is the case here: Well-intentioned forwarding does nothing towards helping a sick child; it does, however, make the day of some prankster. If you want to make a difference in a sick child's life, the best way is still the old-fashioned one: donate your money or your time, don't passively share a worthless message.   KEYE-TV [Austin].  "Text Messages About Dell Children's Med Center Donations Are False."
  22 June 2010. Roser, Mary Ann.  "Seton Alerts Public That Text Message to Help 'Raped' Child Is Bogus."
  The [Austin] Statesman.  22 June 2010. This story was updated on June 4, 2019 to add a second viral Facebook post. Kathie Tovo, facing Austin City Council Member Randi Shade in a June 18 runoff, says in aTV adthat debuted in April: Were in a budget crisis, but the council may give $4 million a year to subsidize a race track. Thats the wrong priority.City Hall coughing up for vroom-vroom?First, lets brake to define subsidy. Merriam-Websters Online Dictionarysaysits a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public. Offered examples are expenditures for public transit or to farmers in case of crop failure.To back her claim, Tovos campaign pointed us to an eight-pagefact sheeton her website touching on money that could flow to support Formula One races to be held on a track being built east of Austins airport.According to the sheet, state Comptroller Susan Combs has agreed to provide $25 million a year for 10 years from a state trust fund to cover an annual sanctioning fee that local F1 organizers must pay to the British-based international race organization.The fund reimburses event organizers with some of the extra sales, hotel, alcohol and car rental tax revenue attributable to the event itself  i.e., money that the state theoretically would not have collected if the event had not been held. In the past it has been used to attract NFL Super Bowls and the Major League and NBA All-Star games.Per a 2009 state law, though, the states $25 million a year can only be spent if a local city or county government puts up $1 for every $6.25 in state aid. The law specifies that in order to get the state aid, local organizers need a local city or county to agree to endorse the event.So, $4 million a year is to be ginned up locally with the money would be dedicated to covering costs of staging the event -- police overtime, say, or erecting traffic barriers -- municipal expenses that might otherwise be charged to the promoter.Subsidy case closed?Not by the lights of Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell. A June 8 Austin American-Statesman newsarticlequotes Leffingwell saying during a June 7 City Council work session: The city will never put any money into the Formula One project.During the session, Richard Suttle, the projects Austin lawyer, said the first of the 10 payments will come from a local organizing committee, which in turn expects to get the money from the Formula One promoters. A city employee noted that the subsequent local contributions of $4 million will come from tax revenue the state expects to reap in connection with the races.Next, we asked Tovos camp why the $4 million amounts to a subsidy if the first installment is to come from a non-governmental source and future payments are expected to reflect tax revenue that presumably would not exist without the races.Jim Wick, Tovos deputy campaign manager, replied: What you have happening right now is the mayor and some members of the council are trying to figure out how to structure this so that it doesnt appear the city (is) giving the promoters of this event a subsidy. It looks like fuzzy accounting.Shade campaign spokeswoman Lynda Rife pointed out by email that the trust fund money can be spent on the races -- not construction of the track itself. Also, each race is expected to generate more than $4 million in new tax revenue that wouldn't come to the city without the event taking place.Rifes email continued: If we dont generate that $4 million in new tax revenue from the event, then the city doesnt have to pay the whole $4 million. The city is not on the hook, if the event doesnt meet the performance standard, she said.Notably, the city can use its contribution to the trust fund to pay race-related expenses. According to Rodney Gonzales, deputy director of the city's Economic Growth and Development Services office, any amount not spent to cover hosting expenses would remain in the trust fund the next year and could not be spent for other municipal purposes.Time to wave our checkered flag.Maybe we missed a hairpin turn or two, but its clear the council is gearing up to vote on an agreement committing tax revenue to a trust fund devoted to supporting the F1 races.Subsidy? Sure, though Tovos statement skirts the expectation that the area will draw tax benefits equal to or exceeding the local expenditures. We rate it Mostly True.