Says Texas charter schools get 100% state $/pupil funding while district schools (95% students) get about 1/3 funding from state w/ rest coming from local prop taxes (which is why those taxes are so high). Districts getting less b/c scarce $ going to charters.
A Democratic legislator declared that state aid fully fuels Texas charter schools while schools serving the vast bulk of students field less money. State Rep.Donna Howardof Austin said in her July 18, 2018tweet: Here's the thing. In Tx, charters get 100% state $/pupil funding while district schools (95% students) get about 1/3 funding from state w/ rest coming from local prop taxes (which is why those taxes are so high). Districts getting less b/c scarce $ going to charters. Howard was reacting to a national Associated Pressnews storyon billionaires championing charter schools. Since 2006, the story says, philanthropists and their private foundations and charities--topped by the Walton Family Foundation, run by heirs to the Walmart fortune--gave almost half a billion dollars to 52 state-level charter support organizations to sustain, defend and expand the charter schools movement. Texas charter schools--public schools with charters run most often by private nonprofit entities--have boomed since the 1995 Legislature authorized them by law. Such schools must meet state-set academic accountability standards, but theyre exempted from other laws affecting districts such as teacher certification and elementary school class-size limits. To our inquiry, Bruce Marchand of theTexas Charter Schools Associationcalled Howards jam-packed claim factually squishy solid. The squishy part, Marchand said by email, is the implication that 100% funded charters have something to do with high property taxes and that districts get less money because that money is going to charters. Districts get less, Marchand said, because state dollars follow students based on where theyre enrolled. Lets break down Howards tweet by its factual elements. Howard said charter schools get all their funding from the state: Charter schools get nearly all their funding from state aid, Marchand agreed by phone, drawing 3 percent from grants and federal sources. That heavy state reliance is logical, Marchand and others said, because unlike districts, charter schools lack the authority to levy property taxes. According to a December 2017 Texas Education Agencydocument summarizing charter school funding, state aid to charter schools escalated from nearly $417 million for 2005-06 to about $2 billion in 2015-16. Howard said school districts serve 95 percent of students: Charter schools serve a growing handful of pupils--5.5 percent of Texas public school students in 2017, according to figures we fielded by email from the TEAs DeEtta Culbertson. That year, she said, 705 charter campuses enrolled 296,323 students--a doubling since 2011, according to an August 2018agency presentationnoted by Marchand. (The state caps the number of state-issued charters, but a charter-holder may open more than one school.) An implication: Districts in 2017 served 94.5 percent of public school students. Howard said districts get one-third of their aid from the state:Earlier this year, we reviewed Legislative Budget Board figures to conclude that in the 1980s, lawmakers voted for the state to cover 70 percent of theFoundation School Program, which is the states primary way of funding schools. State aid, we found, ended up covering a little more than half of related state-local costs. State aid covered 44 percent of such costs in 2016; its expected to cover 38 percent of such costs in 2019. Thats more than a third. When we sought Howards factual backup, Jacob Cottingham in her office responded with materials including aJanuary 2018 LBB chartdelivering percentages like what we previously reported. Cottingham also emailed us a spreadsheet isolating state aid going to districts alone.According to the sheet, which Cottingham said he built based on LBB data, in 2016, more than $17.8 billion in state aid sent to districts accounted for 39 percent of state spending on public education. The sheet says that in 2019, more than $15.7 billion in state funds projected to go to districts will account for 32 percent of state school aid. Howard said the states one-third share of what schools spend is why school property taxes are so high:  To the contrary, we asked Howard, isnt it changes in the value of local property tax bases that drive how much state aid a district is entitled to receive? Howard replied with a statement noting that a districts per-pupil tax wealth is key to how much state aid flows. When students leave a district for a charter (or private school or drop out), the (districts) property wealth per student increases as there are fewer students, and the state's required minimum share to the district is decreased, Howard said. The TEAs Culbertson separately responded by email: One of the primary drivers of the Texas school finance system is student attendance. If a student leaves a school district for any reason, including moving out of state, enrolling in another school district, public charter school, or private school (including home school), the original school district would no longer incur the costs of educating that student, and the original school districts total funding entitlement would be reduced. Howard said districts get less money because dollars go to charter schools: Cottingham told us Howard reached that conclusion by reviewing changes in per-student state spending on charter schools and districts. Cottingham emailed us anLBB chartshowing Foundation School Program state aid per student enrolled in districts compared with charter schools from fiscal 2010 through fiscal 2016 plus estimated and projected aid for fiscal 2017 through fiscal 2019. The chart shows charter schools consistently getting thousands of dollars more per student in average daily attendance:  SOURCE: Chart,Foundation School Program State Aid and Average Daily Attendance for School Districts and Charter Schools, Fiscal Years 2010-19,Legislative Budget Board, 2018 (confirmed by email, R.J. DeSilva, communications officer, Legislative Budget Board, July 31, 2018) According to the chart, charter schools in 2016 fielded $8,956 in state aid per ADA and school districts on average drew $3,800--meaning charter schools got 136 percent of what districts drew.By our calculations, the chart shows charter schools getting 149 percent of what districts would have gotten in 2017 and 167 percent of what districts would get in 2018 and 190 percent of what districts would get in 2019. Cottingham told us the fact that state aid to districts goes up or down based on the value of local tax bases helps explain why districts are projected to get increasingly less in state aid than charter schools. Charter schools, he said, can count by law on getting each years full average adjusted state-aid allotment in contrast to districts whose allocations are affected by how much theyre expected to reap in property taxes. By phone, Amanda Brownson of  the Texas Association of School Business Officials offered a similar analysis. Another facet noted by Cottingham: The state ponies up the full per-student entitlement cost of each student--costing the state more than each per-student payment sent to districts. Of late, the August 2018 TEA presentation says, charter schools draw an adjusted state allotment of $6,540--equivalent, the agency says, to what a small district receives. Meantime, the presentation says, more than 95 percent of students enrolled in districts are in districts getting less than $6,540 in state allotments. We also heard back from Greg Worthington, a University of Texas doctoral student. By email, Worthington saidlegislation revising the school finance system that passed into law in a summer 2017 special sessionwould result in numerous districts losing chunks of per-student aid as charter schools draw more. Asked how funding of charter schools results in less money for districts, Worthington offered adetailed replycentered on reductions in aid to districts caused by students transferring to charter schools. This shouldnt surprise, Worthington indicated, in that the concept of school choicepromulgatedby the late economist Milton Friedman relies on schools competing for funding tied to enrollment. Friedman said government might be responsible for funding schools, Worthington wrote, but he maintained it isnt supposed to administer education. School choice policies embraced by many ruling Republicans ultimately work to replace the public school system with a market-based education system, Worthington said. Our ruling Howard said Texas charter schools get all their per-student aid from the state while school districts, which serve 95 percent of students, get a third of their funding that way with the rest drawn from property taxes. Also, Howard said, districts get less because scarce dollars go to charter schools. Howards points about student enrollment and state funding going to charter schools and school districts hold up. Its also true that a student who leaves a district school to attend a charter school costs the district state aid while that student brings the charter school thousands of dollars more in per-pupil state aid than what the district would get. This dense tweet lacks the clarification that upticks or slides in local property values greatly affect whether a district faces ups or downs in state aid. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
In his latest TV ad, Gov. Scott Walker rips challenger Mary Burkes attempt to attract a giant Illinois-based company to add thousands of jobs in Wisconsin when Burke ran the state Commerce Department under Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle. As Jim Doyles Commerce secretary, Mary Burke spent $12.5 million dollars to buy a vacant lot for a company that said it had no plans to create jobs in Wisconsin,the adsays. In fact, the same company had already laid off over 800 workers when Burke closed the deal. The ads kicker: Mary Burke says shell work to create jobs and spend our tax money wisely. But her record as Jim Doyles Commerce secretary tells a different story. Is Walker right about his likely Democratic opponent in the November 2014 election? Did Burke really authorize an aid package for a company that said it had no plans to create jobs here -- after massive layoffs at the firm? The Burke campaign reacted to the ad by saying: Everyone from local officials to the local chamber of commerce to Walker's own administration agrees that this was and is a good deal from an economic development standpoint. The grant contained strong protections for taxpayers if job creation goals were not met or infrastructure was not developed for economic development. Lets dig into what happened. The ad focuses on a major move by Doyle and Burke in the spring of the 2006 election year. In March 2006, they announced a $12.5 million forgivable loan funded through federal community block grant funds, the largest such award in Commerce Department history. It was to support development of 500 acres acquired in Kenosha County by global pharmaceutical maker Abbott Laboratories Inc. Abbott, a major employer of Wisconsin residents based just 15 miles south of Kenosha County, had purchased parcels of land on the Wisconsin side since June 2005 for possible expansion. Doyle and Burke sought to augment that purchase with another 40 acres paid for with the $12.5 million state award. They and local officials wanted to get the land in order to block plans for a truck stop they thought could impede development in the area. Judging by the comments of Doyle and Burke at the time -- she had full confidence 2,400 jobs would result; he welcomed the company to Wisconsin -- youd have thought Abbott had already announced its expansion in early 2006. But theJournal Sentinel reported Wednesdaythat not only did no jobs materialize, federal officials in 2013 demanded the money back. Eight years after the 2006 deal, Abbott has not developed the Kenosha County land. Abbott showed interest Did it have no plans to create jobs, as the Walker ad claims? In one sense, Abbott clearly had shown an interest in possible expansion in Wisconsin, as evidenced by the land purchases made with its own funds. The possibility was real enough for local officials in Kenosha County to actively work on working on paving the way for the firm. The company paid out $35 million for those parcels. But that solid interest fell short of an actual plan to build and start hiring. (The company, we should note, also signed a development agreement with the Village of Pleasant Prairie to develop that land. But that was a year after Burkes agency made the award). The company didnt stand alongside state officials when Doyle announced the loan in 2006. And officials said precious little about their intentions at that time. Heres a look back: Chicago Tribune story, Feb. 14, 2006:  Abbott has acquired approximately 500 acres of land in Pleasant Prairie, Wis., in anticipation of future growth and expansion, a company spokesman said. No specific plans are in place at this time for development of the property. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story, March 3, 2006:  Abbott spokesman Jonathan Hamilton said the Wisconsin site is for future growth, without any specific plans at this time. Commerce Department newsletter, April 2006: Abbott has purchased this land in Wisconsin in anticipation of future growth and expansion, said Dale Johnson, the companys divisional vice president for State Government Affairs. We are pleased to have worked with the Governor, his staff, the Village of Pleasant Prairie and the Kenosha Area Business Alliance. Those comments made clear the company was preparing for possible expansion in Wisconsin, but had no specific plan at the moment. Feds object One media story, in the Chicago Tribune in February 2006, speculated that Abbotts Wisconsin land buys might be leverage for the company on various issues it had before Illinois lawmakers. With the uncertain timetable in mind, the Commerce Departments aid deal was long term. If in 10 years, at least 2,400 jobs were created by Abbott in Wisconsin, the loan -- actually made to the village of Pleasant Prairie, which passed the funds to Abbott -- would not have to be repaid. In theory, that means there is still time to make the expansion happen with help from the loan. But the US Housing and Urban Development office in Milwaukee demanded the $12.3 million back in 2013 saying the development project was ineligible for the block grant dollars the state had used. The reasons the federal agency cited in its decision are relevant to judging whether Abbott stated any plans to create jobs in Wisconsin. A letter from HUD to the state in August 2013 concluded that the Commerce Department had no written commitment from Abbott to develop the property or create jobs. State officials agreed to that deal at the time. The federal agency declared that Commerce participated in a speculative land banking venture without ensuring that the funded activity would be eligible. Even years later, the specific proposed use of the acquired land has not yet been identified, HUDs Sernorma Mitchell wrote to state Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch. Those comments from HUD help Walkers case. Finally, the Walker ad also mentions layoffs, citing Chicago newspaper stories. Media in Illinois reported that Abbott cut at least that many jobs in Illinois in 2005 and early 2006. Our rating Walkers ad said: As Jim Doyles Commerce secretary, Mary Burke spent $12.5 million dollars to buy a vacant lot for a company that said it had no plans to create jobs in Wisconsin and had laid off 800 workers. Theres a hint of mischief in the ads language in that it can be heard to mean that Burke was so incompetent she gave money to a firm with zero interest in a Wisconsin operation. That idea is off base. But as we say at PolitiFact, words matter, and the ads claim closely mirrors what company officials said at the time of the award. And HUD officials found that even seven years later, no specific use for the land was proposed. We rate Walkers claim Mostly True. Claim:  A new White House policy eliminates combat pay for U.S. military personnel "unless they are being shot at."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2012] Obama pulls combat pay from service personnel.  President Obama's latest policy outrage makes no attempt to hide his contempt for our military, as he is ordering that our troops serving overseas in war zones overseas are not to receive combat pay unless they are being shot at. A Marine who lives in Florida has just posted a note on Facebook which stated that he received a letter from his MyPay account that he would only be receiving his Hazard pay (Imminent Danger Pay) if he is actually in a hostile area and at risk of being shot at. So I just got a letter from MyPay (the way we get paid in the military), saying that I will only reason Combat Pay while deployed for the days that I take fire or am in a hostile area. Now, as an Infantry Marine, I'm constantly in a combat zone  it may not always be popping off, but for them to take that away from us is bullshit. Now, the aviation tech who sits on Camp Leatherneck, sure, I can see him not getting Combat Pay, but to take it away from the grunts, the ground pounders, the front line of defense ... come on, Uncle Sam. You let the Liberals win a big one here  Florida Marine Corp Soldier  Origins:  This item about the elimination of imminent danger pay (also known as "combat pay" or "hostile fire pay") for all U.S. military personnel save for those who are "being shot at" includes some truth and a good deal of mischaracterization.  It references a policy change that took place back in February 2012 not as an "order from President Obama," but rather with the implementation of the sprawling 2012 National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress: National Defense Authorization Act The first major overhaul in hostile fire pay since World War II has been ordered by a Senate committee in a plan that would pay troops based on their actual number of days in a hostile area rather than a flat monthly rate. Approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee as part of the 2012 defense authorization bill, S 1254, the provision would convert the current $225 for hostile fire and imminent danger pay, paid for any month in which a person spends any time in a designated zone, to a new prorated payment of $7.50 for each day spent in a designated danger zone. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a Vietnam combat veteran and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee's personnel panel, called the change a "basic accounting measure to ensure that individuals receive hostile fire or imminent danger pay only for the time they spend in qualifying areas." Webb said ground combat troops will see "minimal impact" from the change "as they are stationed full time in the qualifying areas." In effect, all members of the U.S. military continue to receive imminent danger pay (IDP) for serving in areas "where members are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions," whether or not they are actually "shot at."  The change that came about in February 2012 was that previously service members received a flat monthly payment ($225) for each month in which they spent any time at all in an imminent danger pay area; instead, they are now paid a per diem rate of $7.50 for each day they actually spend in such areas.  Service members who come under fire still receive the full monthly hostile fire pay amount regardless of where they are serving. As described by the Air Force Times, the reasoning behind the change in policy was as follows: Beginning with Feb. 15 [2012] paychecks, troops will be paid only for the actual days they spend in a qualifying danger pay location, Pentagon officials said. Under the previous policy, troops who spent any portion of a month in a danger pay location received full monthly danger pay of $225. The proration amounts to $7.50 per day. So, for example, if an airman spends only 10 days of the month in an eligible area, he will have only $75 in IDP added to his paycheck. The change would fall mostly on rear-echelon and headquarters staff whose occasional and short visits to a hostile area, such as attending a change-of-command ceremony in Afghanistan, had provided them the same $225 monthly hostile fire pay that went to the front-line airmen or soldiers facing imminent danger every day of the month. Because changes of command often happen on the first day of a month, someone arriving May 31 to attend a June 1 ceremony previously drew $450  two months of danger pay. Those one- or two-day visitors benefited from what ground combat troops had derisively called "sightseer pay." The change was designed mainly to prevent people who briefly visit a combat or danger zone from receiving the same pay as someone assigned to a deployed unit. Under the previous rules, a person could schedule a visit to an eligible area on the last day of one month, depart the next day and collect two full months of danger pay. Exceptions will be made for troops who are "exposed to a hostile fire incident." Regardless of location, those troops will receive a monthly payment of $225. A 2 February 2012 Armed Forces Press Service release explained the implementation of the new policy:  release Service members now will receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas, Pentagon officials said. The change, which took effect [1 February 2012], was included in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which President Barack Obama signed into law Dec. 31. "Members will see the prorated amount in their Feb. 15 pay records," Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. John Kirby said. The act called for DOD to pay service members imminent danger pay only for the time they spend in areas that qualify for the pay. In the past, service members received $225 per month if they spent any time that month in an area where the pay was authorized. "This is a more targeted way of handling that pay," Kirby said. Now, service members will receive $7.50 a day for days spent in these areas. Personnel who travel to the designated areas for periods less than 30 days should  keep track of the number of days they are in the area to verify that they are paid for the correct number of days, officials said. The military services are working to waive or remit debts for members who may have been overpaid for January, officials said. The services can waive this "when there is no indication of fraud, fault, misrepresentation, or when members were unaware they were overpaid," Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said. Proration is based on a 30-day month, which translates into a rate of $7.50 per day. It does not matter if the month is 28 or 31 days long, officials explained; if service members serve in affected areas for the complete month, they will receive the full rate of $225 per month. The Defense Department defines imminent danger pay areas as places where members are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions. Service members who come under fire, regardless of location, will receive the full monthly hostile-fire pay amount of $225. Service members will receive notification of the change via emails, on the MyPay system, on social media sites and via the chain of command. Last updated:  31 December 2013    Tighman, Andrew.  "New Danger Pay Rules Begin."   Air Force Times.  7 February 2012. The October 2016 WikiLeaks series "The Podesta Emails" gave readers an inside look at operations in the Democratic Party by publishing the communications of Hillary Clinton campaign director John Podesta, and one rumor connected with that e-mail dump held that one of those documents revealed in part that President Obama had "directed his supporters" to engage in "a little all-American voter fraud." Misinterpretation and misrepresentation of WikiLeaks documents is rife, and the phrasing about "a little all-American voter fraud" came not from the actual text of one of the released documents but from a blog post about the WikiLeaks documents: blog post Wikileaks has done an amazing job of revealing to the American people just how screwed up and corrupt our government really is, at all levels. The most recent revelation comes from the very top, and shows that Obama may have directed his supporters in Colorado to engage in a little all-American voter fraud. In the email, John Podesta discussed his meeting to two Coloradans who made it clear that they wanted help in making sure that only legal and living people were allowed to vote in the 2015 caucuses. A search of WikiLeaks returns zero results for the "all-American voter fraud" phrasing: zero results  As with many purported WikiLeaks revelations, the blog included not a link to the complete underlying document but only a screenshot of an out-of-context e-mail along with commentary about it: screenshot  That e-mail was dated 14 May 2015, pertained to the upcoming 2016 Democratic caucuses in Colorado (eventually won by Bernie Sanders), and referenced unproven rumors that back in 2008 the Obama campaign had supposedly "flooded" the Iowa caucuses with ineligible voters from out of state: High importance. I met with Jim and Mike in Denver. They are both old friends of the Clintons and have lots of experience. Mike hosted our Boulder Road Show event. They are reliving the 08 caucuses where they believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters. They want to organize lawyers for caucus protection, election protection and to raise hard $. They are not just Colorado focused and have good contacts in the region A December 2007 Politico article examined the claim made by a Clinton aide at the time that the Obama campaign was trying to "manipulate the Iowa caucuses" by "busing in students from out of state": article A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, drew a distinction between her campaign's approach to college campuses and Obama's, amplifying Yepsen's criticism of the Obama campaign. Theres a big difference here. We are not systematically trying to manipulate the Iowa caucuses with out of state people. We dont have literature recruiting out of state college students. We didnt bus in folks from out of state to the JJ. We didnt bring in out of state activists to the Heartland Forum. An Obama aide also pointed out that there's no evidence his campaign was busing in students from out of state, while my colleague Ben Adler reported that Clinton volunteers from out of state were planning to come back to caucus (it's unclear to him how organized this effort is) and the Clinton campaign did email out a call for volunteers to come from other midwestern states prior to the Jefferson Jackson dinner. Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded to this controversy by saying: Rather than denigrating the caucus rights of students who go to school in Iowa, we would suggest the Clinton campaign organize them. Their attack here is borne out of pure political frustration. Iowans are determined to launch a winning candidate for the Democratic Party to bring real change for our country. They will not be deterred by efforts to dampen participation and 11th-hour attacks. In March 2016, the Clinton campaign allegedly repurposed these rumors and claimed Bernie Sanders' campaign was "busing in" ineligible voters to party caucuses. Sanders dismissed the rumor as a recycled smear used by David Brock: busing in Really? Based on what do they say that? Based on David Brock's long history of honest and integrity? The man who tried to destroy Anita Hill? Is that where this is coming from? Everyone of you know, you know it, that every day you're being flooded by all this negative stuff from Sec. Clinton's super PAC. I haven't heard of that. I don't want my integrity and honesty to be impugned. I have no idea who says this, that is a lie. An absolute lie. We will win or lose, we do it honestly, and I really dislike people suggesting we're going to bring in students from out of state who are going to perjure themselves, and say they are from Iowa? That's, talk about negative stuff, this is what ... Again, I don't think this is the Secretary ... but you bring people like David Brock ... into your campaign ... if this is the kinda stuff that they're planting, that's negative stuff. No e-mail released by WikiLeaks quoted John Podesta (or anyone else) saying that President Obama had engaged in (or suggested his supporters engage in) "a little all-American voter fraud" in Colorado. In 2015 Podesta referenced uncorroborated rumors from the 2008 campaign holding that President Obama had flooded the Iowa caucuses (not the Colorado caucuses, not any 2016 caucuses, and not any general election polling places) with ineligible voters during his run against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Smith, Ben.  "Clinton Aide: Obama Trying To 'Manipulate The Iowa Caucuses.'"
  Politico.  1 December 2007. 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 On Nov. 23, 2020, U.S. General Services Administrator Emily Murphy  an appointee of President Donald Trump  wrote a letter to President-elect Joe Biden that allowed him to start a formal transition of power. The paperwork, obtained by Snopes and displayed below, was the first formal recognition by Trump's government of a Biden presidency. letter formal transition of power The document from the head of the General Services Administration (GSA), an executive branch agency that oversees presidential transitions, raised questions about whether it meant that Trump himself acknowledged defeat to Biden. Concession statements to Americans or phone calls to winning candidates represent an informal step in the country's election process that typically occurs when one candidate secures the majority of electoral votes. Biden reached that milestone  winning key battleground states, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, by comfortable margins  weeks before Murphy's letter. However, Trump broke democratic norms by refusing to concede publicly. electoral votes.   Instead, the president's campaign filed a barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions across the country and accelerated a misinformation campaign online that denied or falsely presented the election results. While legal experts said the litigation did not contain enough evidence to reverse Biden's win, Trump's supporters viewed the effort as a commendable, tough, not-going-to-back-down approach to electoral politics. barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions misinformation campaign "It is not a stain on our national honor for a candidate to refuse to concede when there are open and compelling disputes about an electoral outcome," read a Nov. 23 statement by supporters of the Conservative Action Project, an initiative founded by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III. statement Despite not receiving Trump's concession, Biden filled his Cabinet for the White House, addressing the country under the "Office of the President Elect," and states certified results of the popular vote in order to begin the process of voting for president through the Electoral College. Office of the President Elect states certified results Cue Murphy's letter on Nov. 23. The document carried out the government's obligation under the 1963 Presidential Transition Act to allow presidents-elect and their appointees, aids, and other staff  otherwise known as a transition team  to access millions of federal dollars and set up White House operations before swearing-in ceremonies that would take place the January after general elections. 1963 Presidential Transition Act       Murphy submitted the paperwork after election officials in Michigan certified Biden's win there, and a conservative Republican judge in Pennsylvania shot down a Trump campaign lawsuit, The Associated Press reported. Pennsylvania Murphy's letter said: [Because] of recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results, I have determined that you may access the post-election resources and services described in Section 3 of the Act upon request. The actual winner of the presidential election will be determined by the electoral process detailed in the Constitution. So, in short, a member of the Trump administration, Murphy, filed paperwork to change Biden's official title in government systems to "apparent president-elect" and, as a result, granted him new privileges that only someone with that job title in federal government gets. But it was a wrong interpretation of that procedural step to claim Trump had therefore conceded the 2020 presidential race. Let us note here: No constitutional mandate or federal law requires losing presidential candidates to acknowledge defeat in order for the election's processes to continue. Rather, concession speeches have been an informal tradition that often symbolized a losing candidate's willingness to help with a peaceful transition between presidencies.  transition between presidencies The Associated Press reported: reported In recent days, senior Trump aides including chief of staff Mark Meadows and White House counsel Pat Cipollone had also encouraged him to allow the transition to begin, telling the president he didnt need to concede but could no longer justify withholding support to the Biden transition. [...] Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the GSA action is probably the closest thing to a concession that President Trump could issue. Even after Murphy's letter, the Trump campaign sent supporters emails promoting false claims about the election outcome to solicit donations, including messages to sell "COUNT ALL LEGAL VOTES" T-shirts.   Additionally, on Twitter the president said: "Remember the GSA has been terrific, and Emily Murphy has done a great job, but the GSA does not determine who the next President of the United States will be."   The tweet accurately suggested that presidential elections are technically unfinished until the Electoral College casts its votes and Congress certifies that count, no matter what the administrator does or says. However, it was a misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes to regard those post-Election Day procedures  steps that officially cement Americans' pick for president  as an opportunity to defy the will of the voters without providing compelling evidence of error or fraud. Hours after that tweet, Trump called reporters to a White House briefing room. He gave one-minute remarks about the economy and exited the room without taking questions from reporters. As he walked out, journalists shouted questions about his lack of a concession, and the president did not acknowledge them, White House footage of the event showed. White House footage In short, while a government agency under Trump's administration for the first time officially acknowledged Biden the "apparent president-elect" in a letter that grants him access to federal assets before his swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20, 2021, it is false to claim that Trump had conceded defeat to the president-elect. In December 2016, rumors flew about Donald Trump's personal beliefs and connections as he continued to announce picks for his incoming administration. One such rumor was a meme with a quote that purported to be from the President-elect, painting him as a flat-earther: flat-earther   mocked up Speaking to reporters in Baltimore on Monday, following the 138th conference for the National Guard Association of the United States, the Republican Partys presidential nominee revealed that he is a member of a growing population known generally as flat earth truthers. I fly a lot, and I mean a lot. No one flies more than me. Listen, I own a jet. I own a 757, beautiful plane, its the best plane! If the world were round, believe me, I would know! The comments came in response to a question from AP reporter, Charles Darr, regarding the future role of the National Guard, as private companies proliferate space travel. Mr. Trump, if elected, are you willing to increase taxes in order to meet the growing budget demands of the National Guard, as existential threats from our enemies grow along with the advancement of space travel technology? Darr asked. The presidential hopeful replied that such a future is nonsense, adding that the round earth people, and you know who they are, these people have an agenda. CNN.com.de (like many pages of its ilk) is not affiliated with the legitimate news organization CNN. The site uses a web address similar to CNN.com's in order to trick readers into believe that they are reading genuine news items. However, this web site does not publish factual stories. publish While there is no disclaimer on the web site that specifically states its content is fictional, it does provide several hints that its stories are hoaxes. For instance, the provided contact number of (785) 273-0325 does not lead to CNN's, but that of the Westboro Baptist Church.  (785) 273-0325 Claim:  By default, all U.S. federal income tax refunds paid in 2010 will be issued in the form of U.S. savings bonds.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2010] Please be aware that when filing your income taxes for 2009 earnings, the IRS has decided that all refunds due clients will be paid in US Savings Bonds unless you choose to "opt out". So watch carefully and find the area on the forms or inform your preparer of your intentions regarding this.  I would think that MOST PEOPLE would not want to receive savings bonds as opposed to a refund check in the event of a refund comingto them.   Origins:  Income taxes are a subject of near universal agreement: Nobody likes paying them, nearly everyone thinks they're too high, and many folks are disgruntled that they have to pay their taxes in advance (through payroll withholding) and wait until the following year for the government to refund any overage.  To most, it would be adding insult to injury if, as suggested above, the government stopped issuing income tax refunds in cash (via check or direct deposit) and instead started paying them out in the form of U.S. savings bonds (especially since savings bonds generally cannot be redeemed for their full value until the purchaser has held them for one year). However, the described refund switch isn't happening this year; someone has misinterpreted the introduction of a new option as a system-wide change to be imposed on everyone by default. In his weekly radio address of  5 September 2009, President Obama announced new initiatives for retirement savings, one of which was the following: radio We'll make it easier for people to save their federal tax refunds, which 100 million families receive. Today, if you have a retirement account, you can have your refund deposited directly into your account. With this change, we'll make it easier for those without retirement plans to save their refunds as well. You'll be able to check a box on your tax return to receive your refund as a savings bond. But taxpayer participation in the described initiative isn't a mandatory or default plan, and (for now, at least) it isn't as simple as "checking a box on your tax return." For refunds to be issued in 2010, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has implemented a program under which taxpayers may opt to receive part or all of their refunds (up to $5,000) in the form of U.S. Treasury Bonds. This program is described in the "Buying Savings Bonds" section of the IRS' informational page entitled "Taxpayers Can Now Use Refunds to Buy Savings Bonds": program page This year, a taxpayer for the first time can request a portion of his refund be used to buy up to $5,000 in low-risk, liquid Treasury I Bonds, which earn interest and protect owners against inflation. The resulting bonds will be issued in the taxpayer's name. If the refund is a joint refund, the bonds will be issued in the names of both taxpayers. No beneficiary may be selected. The taxpayer need not have a TreasuryDirect account to purchase I Bonds using this option. You can buy Savings Bonds in denominations of $50, $100, $200, $500 and $1,000. You buy them at face value, meaning if you pay $50 using your refund, you get a $50 Savings Bond. In any single calendar year, you can buy up to a total of $5,000 of U.S. savings bonds of any series whether using your refund or some other method. If you buy $250 or less of Savings Bonds with your refund, then $50 Savings Bonds will be issued. If the amount is over $250, then $50 Savings Bonds will be issued up to $250 and the fewest possible additional Savings Bonds will be issued for the remaining amount. Follow the instructions on Form 8888 to tell the IRS to make a direct deposit of the amount you designate to an IRA, to buy U.S. savings bonds, or to a savings account or other savings vehicle. As noted in that description, the program for receiving refunds via savings bonds is an option taxpayers can request to participate in; not a default applied to everyone except those who specifically take action to opt out of it.   Taxpayers who wish to take part in this new program must proactively indicate their desire to do so by filling out and submitting IRS Form 8888 with their returns. Form 8888 Additional changes may be coming in future years, but taxpayers filing federal income tax returns in 2010 for income earned in 2009 need not "watch carefully" to avoid receiving their refunds as savings bonds. Last updated:  26 January 2010    Liberto, Jennifer.  "Obama to Workers: We'll Help You Save."   CNNMoney.com.  5 September 2009.    Nicklaus, David.  "How to Promote Savings? The Humble Savings Bond Is Part of the Answer."   St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  9 September 2009.    Rosato, Donna.  "Help Consumers Save More of Their Dough."   Money.  January 2010.    Tompor, Susan.  "Put Away Debt, Put Money Into Savings."   Detroit Free Press.  7 January 2010.    Trumbull, Mark.  "Uncle Sam Wants You to Save More Money."   The Christian Science Monitor.  5 September 2009. Claim:  The actor who portrayed the "Marlboro Man" in print and television cigarette advertisements died of lung cancer.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 1999] I heard that the actor who was the Marlboro Man in TV commercials died of lung cancer from smoking.  Is that true?   Origins:  When a prominent study was released in the 1950s linking smoking to lung cancer, it presented Philip Morris, the manufacturer of the Marlboro brand of cigarettes, with a dilemma: many consumers were concerned enough about the health issues associated with smoking to want to switch to filtered cigarettes (which were perceived as safer), but many men viewed filtered cigarettes  and the Marlboro brand in particular, which had originally been marketed as a woman's product, advertised as being mild and ladylike and featuring a red band around one end to disguise lipstick stains  as too feminine.  Philip Morris' response to this issue was to reposition Marlboro as a men's cigarette promoted via advertisements featuring strong masculine figures; the rugged 'Marlboro Man' cowboy became one of the most prominent advertising icons of the mid-twentieth century, propelling Marlboro from a niche brand to the world's best-selling cigarette. The visibility of the Marlboro Man as an icon has diminished greatly in the U.S. since its peak in the 1960s and 1970s, however, as increasing evidence linking cigarette smoking to a variety of medical ailments has caused the prevalence of smoking to decline and prompted the passage of restrictions limiting the media in which cigarettes could be advertised. Many anti-smoking advocates  have since cited claims that "the Marlboro Man died of lung cancer" as an apt irony highlighting the dangers of smoking, a literal death foreshadowing the eventual demise of the product the Marlboro Man helped prompted to many millions of consumers. Any claim about "the" Marlboro Man is somewhat indefinite, though, as many different men have portrayed the rugged-looking cowboys featured in Marlboro cigarette advertisements since 1954. An Oklahoma native named Darrell Winfield (who passed away in January 2015) was the main Marlboro Man from the mid-1970s onwards; but dozens of other men (many of them "real" cowboys) have also modeled for television commercials, magazine and newspaper advertisements, billboards, and other advertising materials promoting Marlboro brand of cigarettes over the last sixty years. A few of those men, all long-time smokers, have died of diseases of the lungs (although most of them lived at least as long as the average life expectancy of their time):  Model David Millar, one of the original Marlboro Men who appeared in television commercials for the cigarette brand in the 1950s, died of emphysema at the age of 81 in 1987:   [Neighbor Stephen] Taylor said Millar smoked, but had quit about 20 years ago. He also quit horses after his early stints with Marlboro. "They used to boost him up by a rope and put him down on the horse because he didn't like horses," said Charles Dudley, a longtime friend. Dudley added that Millar often said he was "the only Marlboro Man who doesn't smoke, drink or like horses." Although Millar had quit [smoking] about 1965, he had smoked for "probably 40 to 45 years" before that, Dudley said. After Millar, Marlboro gravitated toward more authentic cowboys. Born in St. Louis, Millar worked as an advertising executive in magazine publishing and modeled for fashion magazines, his wife, Maria, said. In New Hampshire, where he had lived since retiring in 1961, he was an avid outdoorsman and active in civic and community affairs.  Wayne McLaren, who posed for some promotional photographs on behalf of Marlboro in 1976, succumbed to lung cancer at age 51 on 22 July 1992. McLaren was a former professional rodeo rider who appeared in small parts in various television series and movies (primarily Westerns) throughout the 1960s and 1970s, and he modeled for print advertising between acting jobs in the mid-1970s, including a Marlboro campaign in 1976. McLaren, who had a pack-and-a-half a day smoking habit, was diagnosed with lung cancer at age 49. Despite chemotherapy, the removal of one lung, and radiation treatments, the cancer eventually spread to his brain and killed him. After learning he had cancer, McLaren embarked on an anti-smoking campaign that included the production of a commercial described as follows: Wayne McLaren In the powerful TV spot, images of the handsome young Wayne McLaren in a Stetson hat are juxtaposed with shots of his withered form in a hospital bed just prior to his death. His brother, Charles, provides the voiceover and chides tobacco companies for promoting an 'independent' lifestyle and asks, 'Lying there with all those tubes in you, how independent can you really be?' In the last months of his life McLaren appeared before the Massachusetts legislature when it was considering a bill to add taxes to cigarettes to pay for health education and also spoke at the annual Philip Morris stockholders' meeting to support a resolution that the company limit its advertising. Philip Morris initially denied that McLaren had ever appeared in Marlboro advertising, but a company spokesperson later conceded that McLaren's image had been used in a retail display for Marlboro Texan Poker Cards. (The woman McLaren lived with for the last eight years of his life also produced a Marlboro magazine advertisement which she claimed pictured McLaren.) David McLean, who appeared in many Marlboro television and print advertisements starting in the early 1960s, also died of cancer at age 73 on 12 October 1995. McLean starred in the short-lived 1960 television Western Tate, and he played roles in numerous television series and feature films during the 1960s and 1970s. McLean took up smoking at age 12, began to suffer from emphysema in 1985, and had a cancerous tumor removed from his right lung in 1993. David McLean Despite the surgery, the cancer remained and spread to his brain and spine, and McLean succumbed to it in 1995. In August 1996 McLean's widow and son filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Philip Morris, Inc., claiming that McLean was unable to stop smoking because of his nicotine addiction, and that his smoking habit was the cause of his lung cancer. (The lawsuit contended, among other issues, that McLean had been obligated to smoke up to five packs per take in order to get the right look while posing for advertisements, and that he received cartons of Marlboro cigarettes as gifts from Philip Morris.) At last report (in 1999) the lawsuit was still pending, having outlasted all attempts by defendant Philip Morris to have it dismissed.  In 2014, Eric Lawson, another television actor who appeared in Marlboro advertisements between 1978 to 1981, died of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at the age of 72. Like Wayne McLaren, Lawson was also a habitual smoker from an early age who in later life publicized the dangers of smoking and contributed to the production of an anti-smoking commercial: Eric Lawson A smoker since age 14, Lawson later appeared in an anti-smoking commercial that parodied the Marlboro man and an "Entertainment Tonight" segment to discuss the negative effects of smoking. Susan [Lawson] said her husband was proud of the interview, even though he was smoking at the time and continued the habit until he was diagnosed with COPD. "He knew the cigarettes had a hold on him," she said. "He knew, yet he still couldn't stop." Although diseases such as lung cancer and COPD are strongly linked to cigarette smoking, it is not possible to definitively determine that any particular instance of such a disease was caused by smoking.   Last updated:  15 January 2015 On 2 October 2018, journalist Jamal Khashoggi disappeared during a visit to Saudi Arabia's consulate in Instanbul, Turkey. Although foul play was suspected, the Saudi government at first denied that any harm had been done to the journalist. Then they began releasing conflicting accounts, beginning with the claim that Khashoggi died accidentally in a "fistfight." Ultimately, the Saudis acknowledged that evidence provided by Turkish investigators pointed to his being slain in a "premeditated" attack, which they said was undertaken in a "rogue operation" not authorized by the Saudi royal family. Two senior government officials were dismissed, and 18 Saudi nationals allegedly involved in the murder were arrested. President Trump was criticized in the immediate aftermath of Khashoggi's disappearance for his apparent reluctance to hold the Saudis responsible for the incident. "We want to find out what happened," he said. But he also maintained that the United States' relations with the kingdom were "excellent" and he would not consider stopping arms sales to Saudi Arabia despite calls from members of Congress to do so. Various commentators, including Washington Post contributor Brian Klaas, suggested that Trump's official dealings with Saudi Arabia are "compromised by deep financial conflicts of interest": suggested His business interests -- past, present, and future -- make it impossible for him to contemplate the kind of consequences that the Saudis deserve. In 1991, when Trump was $900 million in debt, he was bailed out by a member of the Saudi royal family, who purchased his 281-foot yacht, Trump Princess. Trumps other princess, Ivanka, is married to Jared Kushner, who has deep ties to the crown prince. In 2015, when asked about his relationship with the Saudis, Trump said: I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much. As recently as December 2016, Trump owned companies in Saudi Arabia, as he sought to build a hotel there. Three days after Trumps inauguration, lobbyists working for the Saudi government funneled $270,000 directly to the Trump Organization by booking rooms at his Washington hotel. More recently, Trumps flagging Manhattan hotel got bailed out thanks to a lucrative visit from none other than the Saudi crown prince. It raises the disturbing possibility that Saudi Arabia will get away with abduction or murder because the president is beholden to Saudi money. Trump responded by tweeting that he has no financial interests in Saudi Arabia: tweeting For the record, I have no financial interests in Saudi Arabia (or Russia, for that matter). Any suggestion that I have is just more FAKE NEWS (of which there is plenty)!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2018 October 16, 2018  That same day, Fox News Research (a Fox News Twitter account that regularly posts newsworthy data) tweeted a list highlighting some of Trump's business relationships with the Saudis: tweeted Trump & Saudi Business:1991: Sold yacht to Saudi Prince2001: Sold 45th floor of Trump World Tower to SaudisJun 2015: I love the Saudis...many in Trump TowerAug 2015: "They buy apartments from me...Spend $40M-$50M"2017: Saudi lobbyists spent $270K at Trump DC hotel  Fox News Research (@FoxNewsResearch) October 16, 2018 October 16, 2018  Shortly afterward, Trump's tweet and the Fox News tweet were combined into a meme and unleashed on Facebook:   The meme presented the Fox News tweet as a refutation of Trump's, but although each of the former's statements can be confirmed via reliable sources, they don't necessarily disprove President Trump's claim that he has no financial interests in Saudi Arabia. The sticking point (and the reason we're rating the claim a mixture of true and false) is that the term "financial interests" usually denotes the ownership of property or investments in a given place, company, or industry. We have found no evidence that either Trump or Trump Organization (the umbrella company operated by Trump's sons, Donald Jr. and Eric), currently owns property or investments in Saudi Arabia. According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, the Trump Organization was pursuing plans to open businesses in Saudi Arabia as recently as 2016, but the Associated Press reported in October 2018 that the companies had been shut down by the time Trump took office: reported Shortly after he announced his run for president, Trump began laying the groundwork for possible new business in the kingdom. He registered eight companies with names tied to the country, such as "THC Jeddah Hotel Advisor LLC" and "DT Jeddah Technical Services," according to a 2016 financial disclosure report to the federal government. Jeddah is a major city in the country. "Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million," Trump told a crowd at an Alabama rally on Aug. 21, 2015, the same day he created four of the entities. "Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much." The president's company, the Trump Organization, said shortly after his 2016 election that it had shut down those Saudi companies. The president later pledged to pursue no new foreign deals while in office. In a statement this week, the company said it has explored business opportunities in many countries but that it does "not have any plans for expansion into Saudi Arabia." There is no question that Trump has profited from business dealings with the Saudis, however. Let's take the items in the Fox News Research list one by one: Fortune reported in 2017 that Trump, facing financial difficulties in 1991, sold a yacht he purchased from the Sultan of Brunei in the 1980s to Saudi Arabia's Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. reported The Associated Press reported that the Kingdom of Saudi purchased the entire 45th floor of Trump World Tower in New York City in 2001, "the biggest purchase in that building to that point." reported During a 16 June 2015 speech at Trump Tower announcing his presidential candidacy, Trump said: "Saudi Arabia, they make $1 billion a day. $1 billion a day. I love the Saudis. Many are in this building." At a campaign rally one month later, he said: "I like the Saudis; they are very nice. I make a lot of money with them. They buy all sorts of my stuff -- all kinds of toys from Trump. They pay me millions and hundreds of millions." speech said At a campaign rally in Mobile, Alabama in August 2015, Trump said: "Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much." said The Wall Street Journal reported in June 2017 that Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C., received payments amounting to roughly $270,000 for services provided to lobbyists working for the Saudi government. Although Trump had announced earlier in the year that any Trump Organization profits from foreign governments would be donated to the U.S. Treasury, the company did not respond to the Journal's questions about what would be done with the Saudi payments, which were made through a third party. reported Despite his not owning businesses, properties, or investments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Trump has clearly, and by his own admission, profited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars from business dealings with the Saudis, and over a long period of time. We reached out to the Trump Organization for comment but received no reply. Beavers, Olivia.  "Saudis Spent $270K at Trump Hotel Amid Lobbying Efforts: Report."
  The Hill.  5 August 2017. Condon, Bernard et al.  "'I Love the Saudis': Trump Business Ties to Kingdom Run Deep."
  Associated Press.  16 October 2018. Fahrenthold, David A. and Jonathan O'Connell.  "'I Like Them Very Much:' Trump Has Longstanding Business Ties with Saudis, Who Have Boosted His Hotels Since He Took Office."
 The Washington Post.  11 October 2018. Kirkpatrick, David D.  "Trump's Business Ties in the Gulf Raise Questions About His Allegiances."
  The New York Times.  17 June 2017. Klaas, Brian.  "Jamal Khashoggi's Fate Casts a Harsh Light on Trump's Friendship with Saudi Arabia."
 The Washington Post.  10 October 2018. Mangan, Dan.  "Trump Claims He Has 'No Financial Interests in Saudi Arabia' --- But He Makes Lots of Money from It."
  CNBC.  16 October 2018. Myre, Greg.  "The Big Overlap Between Trump's Global Holdings and U.S. Foreign Policy."
  NPR.  22 November 2016. Orden, Erica.  "Saudi Disappearance Puts Spotlight on Trump's Business Ties."
  CNN.  12 October 2018. Smith, Geoffrey.  "This Is the 420-Foot Yacht Donald Trump Wanted -- Before He Filed for Bankruptcy."
  Fortune.  13 February 2017. Tau, Byron and Rebecca Ballhaus.  "Trump Hotel Received $270,000 from Lobbying Campaign Tied to Saudis."
  The Wall Street Journal.  6 June 2017. Watson, Kathryn.  "What's at Stake in the Trump Administration's Ties to the Saudis."
  CBS News.  12 October 2018. Wong, Edward et al.  "Trump Calls Relations with Saudi Arabia 'Excellent,' While Congress Is Incensed."
  The New York Times.  11 October 2018. Associated Press.  "A Timeline of Events in the Khashoggi Case."
  25 October 2018. CBS News.  "Transcript: Donald Trump Announces His Presidential Candidacy."
  16 June 2015. On 8 June 2016, the Facebook page "The Bern Report" shared a document authored by researchers Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in The Netherlands and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of Stanford University suggesting that "the outcomes of the 2016 Democratic Party nomination contest [are not] completely legitimate: That social media share described the document as "a fantastic research piece put together by a couple of college students, Rodolfo Cortes Barragan & Axel Geijsel." That document (properly termed a "paper," not a "study," as the latter term implies some form of professional vetting) concluded with the statement that the data examined by its author "suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election" and that "this fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders": document Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive. At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate? We contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide converging evidence for this claim. First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support. In an appendix, Geijsel and Barragan stated that their research was still in progress and had not yet been subject to peer review, but since the information was highly topical they believed it better to pre-release their findings due to the ongoing primary ballot count in California (among other factors): Statement on peer-review: We note that this article has not been officially peer-reviewed in a scientific journal yet. Doing so will take us several months. As such, given the timeliness of the topic, we decided to publish on the Bern Report after we received preliminary positive feedback from two professors (both experts in the quantitative social sciences). We plan on seeking peer-reviewed publication at a later time. As of now, we know there may be errors in some numbers (one has been identified and sent to us: it was a mislabeling). We encourage anyone to let us know if they find any other error. Our aim here truly is to understand the patterns of results, and to inspire others to engage with the electoral system. The post-introduction portion of the paper began with a comparison of outcomes in "primary states with paper trails and without paper trails," holding that potentially inaccurate results led the researchers to "restrict [our] analysis to a proxy: the percentage of delegates won by Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders." After identifying via the Ballotpedia web site 18 states that use a form of paper verification for votes compared to 13 states without such a "paper trail," they concluded that states without "paper trails" demonstrated a higher rate of support for Hillary Clinton: Analysis: The [data] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. States without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton than states with paper trails. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations, including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time. The information included in the Appendix didn't explicate exactly what those alternative explanations might be: Are there other variables that could account for our main effect (states without paper trails going overwhelmingly for Clinton)? We conducted a regression model and included the % of Non-Hispanic Whites in a state as of the last Census, the states electoral history from 1992 to 2012 of favoring Democratic or Republican nominees for President (i.e., the blueness of a state), and our variable of interest: paper trail vs. no paper trail. As expected, race/ethnicity and political ideology played a role: The Whiter and more liberal a state, the less it favored Clinton. However, the effect for paper trail remains significant. States with paper trails show significantly less support for Clinton. As such, even beyond the potential for other likely factors to play a role, the potential for fraud is associated with gains for Clinton.  Dependent variable: Percent support for Clinton in the primaries  In the paper's second portion, the researchers examined discrepancies between exit polls and final results by state, a subject of debate (hashtagged #ExitPollGate on social media) that antedated the publication of their paper and was addressed in a Nation article disputing the claim that exit polls revealed fraud. The Nation's analysis held that fraud detection exit polling varied significantly from the type of exit polling typically carried out in the United States: While exit polls are used to detect potential fraud in some countries, ours arent designed, and arent accurate enough, to accomplish that purpose. [A polling company VP], who has conducted exit polls in fragile democracies like Ukraine and Venezuela, explained that there are three crucial differences between their exit polls and our own. Polls designed to detect fraud rely on interviews with many more people at many more polling places, and they use very short questionnaires, often with just one or two questions, whereas ours usually have twenty or more. Shorter questionnaires lead to higher response rates. Higher response rates paired with larger samples result in much smaller margins of error. Theyre far more precise. But it costs a lot more to conduct that kind of survey, and the media companies that sponsor our exit polls are only interested in providing fodder for pundits and TV talking heads. All they want to know is which groups came out to vote and why, so thats what they pay for. As well, standard exit polling conducted in the U.S. can be very inaccurate and systematically biased for a number of reasons, including: including o Differential nonresponse, in which the supporters of one candidate are likelier to participate than those of another candidate. Exit polls have limited means to correct for nonresponse, since they can weight only by visually identifiable characteristics. Hispanic origin, income and education, for instance, are left out. o Cluster effects, which happen when the precincts selected arent representative of the overall population. This is a very big danger in state exit polls, which include only a small number of precincts. As a result, exit polls have a larger margin of error than an ordinary poll of similar size. These precincts are selected to have the right balance of Democratic and Republican precincts, which isnt so helpful in a primary. o Absentee voters arent included at all in states where they represent less than 20 percent or so of the vote. As the New York Times put it, "[N]o one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do." Nonetheless, Geijsel and Barragan contended in their paper that: Anomalies exist between exit polls and final results Data procurement: We obtained exit poll data from a database kept by an expert on the American elections. Analysis: On the overall, are the exit polls different from the final results? Yes they are. The data show lower support for Secretary Clinton in exit polls than the final results would suggest. While an effect size of 0.71 is quite substantial, and suggests a considerable difference between exit polls and outcomes, we expected that this difference would be even more exaggerated in states without paper voting trails. Indeed, the effect size in states without paper voting trails is considerably larger: 1.50, and yields more exaggerated support for the Secretary in the hours following the exit polls. The expert whose numbers were utilized for the paper wasn't expressly cited by name, but his moniker appeared on the linked spreadsheet: Richard Charnin. Charnin indeed lists some impressive statistical credentials on his personal blog, but he also appears to expend much of his focus on conspiracy theories related to the JFK assassination (which raises the question of whether his math skills outstrip his ability to apply skeptical reasoning to data). spreadsheet conspiracy theories Geijsel addressed questions about exit poll numbers in a subsequent e-mail to a blogger who was highly skeptical of his research: skeptical In short, exit polling works using a margin of error, you will always expect it to be somewhat off the final result. This is often mentioned as being the margin of error, often put at 95%, it indicates that there's a 95% chance that the final result will lie within this margin. In exit polling this is often calculated as lying around 3%. The bigger the difference, the smaller the chance that the result is legitimate. This is because although those exit polls are not 100% accurate, they're accurate enough to use them as a reference point. In contrast to the idea that probably 1 out of 20 results will differ. Our results showed that (relatively) a huge amount of states differed. This would lead to two possibilities, a) the Sanders supporters are FAR more willing to take the exit polls, or b) there is election fraud at play. Considering the context of these particular elections, we believe it's the latter. Though that's our personal opinion, and others may differ in that, we believe we can successfully argue for that in a private setting considering the weight of our own study, the beliefs of other statisticians who have both looked at our own study (and who have conducted corroborating studies), and the fact that the internet is littered with hard evidence of both voter suppression and election fraud having taken place. That blogger passed the anlysis on to his father ("a retired Professor Emeritus in Mathematics and Applied Statistics at the University of Northern Colorado"), Donald T. Searls, Ph.D., for comment: comment I simply asked him to review it in full and send me his comments as to its methodology and his view as to its validity. For the record, he has been a Republican for as long as I can recall and has no interest in voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that might be. I received his response via e-mail today. Here is what he wrote: I like the analysis very much up to the point of applying probability theory. I think the data speak for itself (themselves). It is always problematic to apply probability theory to empirical data. Theoretically unknown confounding factors could be present. The raw data is in my mind very powerful and clear on its own. My personal opinion is that the whole process has been rigged against Bernie at every level and that is devastating even though I don't agree with him. I called him after receiving his response to [ask him to] clarify his remarks on the application of probability theory to the data. His comment to me was that he did not believe it was necessary for the authors to take that step. If he had done the study himself, he would not have bothered with doing so. As he said, the data speaks for itself. Although Geijsel cited a number of sources to substantiate the claim that fraud was well-documented in the 2016 primary season, most of those citations involved persons with an interest in the overall dispute (such as groups party to lawsuits). That factor doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the researchers' findings, but it highlights that not much independent and neutral verification of their conclusions has occurred yet.  Cohn, Nate.  "Exit Polls, And Why The Primary Was Not Stolen From Bernie Sanders."
  27 June 2016. Geijsel, Axel and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan.  "Are We Witnessing a Dishonest Election?"
  7 June 2016. Holland, Joshua.  "Reminder: Exit-Poll Conspiracy Theories Are Totally Baseless."
  The Nation.  7 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "My Dad's View of Election Fraud Study."
  11 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "Election Fraud Study Authors Respond."
  13 June 2016. When deciding which charities to donate to, many people consider an important factor to be the "efficiency" of these organizations  that is, what percentage of the monies taken in by a given charity goes to funding its mission rather than being eaten up by costs such as fundraising activities, salaries, and other administrative overhead. The e-mail reproduced above, which began circulating in 2005 and has been re-circulated every year since then around Christmastime, attempts to steer potential donors away from inefficient charities. Unfortunately, much of the information it presents was inaccurate back in 2005, and it has grown only more so in the years since then, resulting in a misleading and outdated view of various charities. We attempt to present accurate and up-to-date information about the named charities below. The following efficiency information is derived from the Charity Navigator web site, the GuideStar web site and Forbes magazine's November 2009 special report on the 200 Largest U.S. Charities. Salary information is taken from Schedule J (Compensation Information) of the various charities' IRS Form 990 filings, an annual reporting return that certain federally tax-exempt organizations must file with the IRS which provides information on the filing organization's mission, programs, and finances. (In the context of this article, the term "efficiency" refers to the percentage of total budget/expenses that each listed organization spends on providing charitable programs and services, while the term "compensation" or "pay" includes salary, one-time payments, and deferred compensation.) Charity Navigator GuideStar special report UNICEF United States Fund for UNICEF states 2010 2011 said United Way Worldwide reported World Vision World Vision Canada states: In our annual report to the Canada Revenue Agency, we publicly disclose information about executive compensation. In the interest of greater transparency to our donors, we have gone beyond our legal requirements by disclosing that our president, Michael Messenger, currently earns the top annual base salary of $215,000 plus a combination of taxable and non-taxable benefits. The presidents performance is subject to annual review by our Board of Directors, and his compensation is decided by them. World Vision Canada's (self-reported) efficiency is 81%, much higher than the 52% figure claimed above. BBB Goodwill Industries International Jim Gibbons compensation March of Dimes St. Jude parent Lions Clubs A 2011 addendum to the original message presented the following information: The American Legion National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Disabled American Veterans National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Military Order of Purple Hearts National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Vietnam Veterans Association National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Wounded Warriors National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. These organizations with no salaries have donations going to help Veterans and their families and youth. According to the most recent available Form 990 filings, all of these statements are false and/or misleading (in large part because the National Commanders are not necessarily the top business executives of these organizations): Unfortunately, the six veterans-related charitable organizations mentioned above don't receive very high marks for efficiency (as determined by Charity Navigator, the BBB, or Form 990 information): <!--Additional information:  America's Most Efficient Charities --> UNICEF USA. "CEO Salary Email." American Red Cross. "Red Cross Statement on Inaccurate Viral Email on Charity CEO Pay." 11 December 2012. United Way. "CEO Compensation FAQ." World Vision Canada. "Our Approach to Executive Compensation." Updated CEO names and salaries for several of the organizations listed.