Coors and Nazis
Claim:  Coors financially supports Nazi groups.  Origins:  The Adolph Coors Company has been the subject of numerous vilification rumors. Most prevalent are the ones that link Coors to either Nazism or the Ku Klux Klan. Coors has no ties to either evil entity. That part is lore, born of a need to express negative feelings about a particular business concern, put into words in the form of wildly inaccurate rumor.  Two   factors influence the "Coors has a Nazi or neo-Nazi connection": the first name of the company's founder, and the long-time association between the Coors Foundation and right-wing, conservative groups. The Adolph Coors Company was founded in 1873 by a fellow who shared a first name with the 20th century's greatest villain, Adolph Hitler. That Hitler wouldn't be fetched into the world by the stork for another sixteen years after this Colorado beer company was formed doesn't seem to affect those who search for "meaningful" connections to hang dark imaginings on. (Hitler was born in 1889, whereas Adolph Coors was born in 1847 and founded his company in 1873.) The second factor  which is much harder to define  is the association of Coors with a variety of right-wing causes and charities, and how this connection translates in some people's minds to a tie to Nazism. (Apparently to some "right wing" equals "Nazi," and under that mode of thinking Coors' funding a conservative think tank that generated recommendations for then-President Ronald Reagan equated to arming the next generation of skinheads intent upon heading for Paris to take over the world.) The Coors family supports the Coors Foundation, which donates funds to many political, social, and educational organizations, some of which are unapologetically right-wing and conservative. These aren't monies the company puts towards these causes; the cash comes from the family, which is an important distinction. The same arguments made about Domino's Pizza owner Tom Monaghan's support of pro-life causes should be made here  he was acting as a private citizen who chose to bestow a part of his fortune on the causes he believed in, not as an officer of Domino's on behalf of that corporation. The money was his to do with as he pleased, just as anyone's paycheck belongs to the person who earns it and stops being the employer's money at the moment it's paid  Domino's Pizza over. The Coors Brewing Company (a principal subsidiary of the Adolph Coors Company) does indeed make contributions to a number of charities and projects, but those on its receiving end are far less controversial groups than those funded by the Coors Foundation. Beneficiaries of Coors Brewing Company's generosity include literacy and fight hunger programs. The second prevalent vilification rumor ties Coors to the Ku Klux Klan, probably as both an outgrowth of the "right wing equals bad guy" way of thinking and as an expression of concerns over how the company has handled race relations issues in the past. Hispanics have boycotted Coors products for decades because of claims of the company having refused to hire them. In 1969 Coors was charged with racial discrimination; it was found guilty the following year and forced to shell out thousands of dollars in back pay.  The brewer has Hispanic employees and has attempted to repair this aspect of its business practices, but old wounds heal slowly, and new rumors of alleged racial insensitivities or support of controversial measures on the part of Coors fall upon receptive ears.  But racial tensions don't equal white-sheeted Klansmen lurking behind every bush, which is the crux of the rumor.  Coors isn't a company the Klan would want to associate with. The Coors Brewing Company has had an employment nondiscrimination policy for more than twenty years and has offered domestic partnership benefits since 1995. The brewer also has a company-recognized gay and lesbian employees group. And Scott Coors, scion of the family, is gay. None of this is to say Coors is beloved of everyone  it isn't. Members of many groups feel they have legitimate grievances against either the company or the family that derives revenue from its operations and channels a portion of that income into causes close to its heart. It is this animus that provides the greatest assurance that Coors isn't allied with the KKK or Nazism  if either of those two links existed, damning evidence would have long ago been paraded past the bleachers by those who have made it their business to scrutinize the company's affairs in hopes of uncovering such an association. More plainly, that rock has been turned over so many times without anything's scurrying out from under it that even the most ardent salamander enthusiast knows to look for his prey elsewhere. Barbara "connection refused" Mikkelson Last updated:  28 April 2011   Turner, Patricia.  I Heard It Through the Grapevine.  Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California, 1993.   ISBN 0-520-08185-4  (pp. 167, 169). I Heard It Through the Grapevine    Wazir, Burhan.  "Gay Director Plays Havoc with 'All-US' Beer Dynasty."   The Observer.  29 July 2001  (p. 23).
During the 2021 holiday season, internet users enthusiastically shared articles and posts that described a fascinating episode from the history of a classic American Christmas movie, "It's a Wonderful Life." On Dec. 21, for example, the London Independent reported that: "'It's a Wonderful Life' was once considered communist propaganda by the FBI," while various outlets shared their own accounts of the story. Independent reported that shared own accounts Those accounts were broadly accurate, and based on high-quality primary documentary evidence. Although the FBI did not ever formally, as an institution, declare "It's a Wonderful Life" to be communist propaganda, FBI agents and informants investigated the movie, and the people behind it, as such. As part of a sweeping investigation ordered by bureau director J. Edgar Hoover, a special agent in 1949 included the film in a list of "motion pictures disclosing communist propaganda therein." We are issuing a rating of "true." That description of the movie, which was released in December 1946, can be found in an archived and redacted copy of the FBI report on "Communist infiltration into the motion picture industry, available here. Specifically, it can be found on Page 12 in the ninth of 15 dossiers released under the Freedom of Information Act at some point in the ensuing decades. available here The sender of this 1949 update to the report is listed as one "H.B. Fletcher," but it's not clear who specifically wrote the "It's a Wonderful Life" entry: listed   Although the FBI does not appear to have ever "officially" declared or designated the film as communist propaganda, it's quite clear those agents involved in the investigation of Hollywood (codenamed "COMPIC") were far from agnostic on the socialist, even Soviet inspiration behind the Christmas classic. Indeed, Hoover instructed Richard Hood, special agent in charge at the Los Angeles field office, to limit his team's criticism and reviews to films "which are obviously communist propaganda in nature." instructed The entry on "It's a Wonderful Life" appears in the fourth section of the report ("Communist Influence in Motion Pictures"), under a sub-section entitled "Analysis of Motion Pictures Disclosing Communist Propaganda Therein." entitled According to the author(s) of the briefing, Frank Capra's movie is noteworthy because: the two credited screenwriters, husband-and-wife team Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, were supposedly close associates of known communists; the film negatively portrays the villainous local businessman Mr. Potter, which is "a common trick used by communists"; and the storyline appears to have been borrowed from a putative earlier Russian film entitled "The Letter." The first two sections of the briefing can be read in full below: According to the Informants [redacted] and [redacted] in this picture the screen credits again fail to reflect the Communist support given to the screen writers. According to [redacted] the writers Frances Goodrick and Albert Hackett were very close to known Communists and on one occasion in the recent past while these two writers were doing a picture for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Goodrick and Hackett practically lived with known Communists and were observed eating luncheon daily with such Communists as Lester Cole, screen writer, and Earl Robinson, screen writer. Both of these individuals are identified in Section I of this memorandum as Communists. With regard to the picture Its A Wonderful Life, [redacted] stated in substance that the film represented a rather obvious attempt to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a scrooge-type so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists. In addition, [redacted] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters. [Redacted] related that if he had made this picture portraying the banker, he would have shown this individual to have been following the rules as laid down by the State Bank Examiners in connection with making loans. Further, [redacted] stated that the scene wouldn't have suffered at all in portraying the banker as a man who was protecting funds put in his care by private individuals and adhering to the rules governing the loan of that money rather than portraying the part as it was shown. In summary, [redacted] stated that it was not necessary to make the banker such a mean character and I would never have done it that way. Magazine, Smithsonian, and Kat Eschner. The Weird Story of the FBI and Its a Wonderful Life. Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weird-story-fbi-and-its-wonderful-life-180967587/. Accessed 22 Dec. 2021. An eye-catching billboard in the state of Minnesota caused some controversy in the early days of January 2018. Purportedly sponsored by "Republicans for Honesty in Government," the billboard showed a photograph of President Donald Trump accompanied by the words "Big Mistake." billboard We received several inquiries from readers about the authenticity of the billboard, and whether it was actually produced by Republicans.  The billboard is real, as is another similar one found elsewhere in Minnesota. However, the group behind it"Republicans for Honesty in Government"is run by a Democratic donor and businessman in the state, suggesting there is more to the campaign than meets the eye. On 2 January 2018, the left-wing Facebook page Occupy Democrats posted a photo of the billboard, along with a message emphasizing the apparent party affiliation of its sponsors: photo REPUBLICANS erected this billboard in Minnesota...speaks volumes about the current state of our Liar-in-Chief's presidency, doesn't it?   That post was shared almost 25,000 times within three days.  The photo appears to have originally been posted to Facebook in October 2017 by Rosemary Rocco, who said the billboard was located along U.S. Route 52, in the state's second congressional district, which includes parts of Minneapolis-St. Paul and Wabasha County. She wrote: posted Seen on MN Highway 52 south-CD2! Proof there are Republicans who care about our country. Note the disclaimer on the billboard. This is what country first looks like. Earlier in October, a Reddit user posted another photograph of a billboard bearing a photograph of Trump along with the word "Clueless." It was also purported to have been erected by the same group.  photograph According to records held by the Minnesota Secretary State, Republicans for Honesty in Government was first registered as a non-profit corporation in Minnesota in 2006, as reported by the regional news web site Bluestem Prairie. Its registered agent is Robert Johnson, founder and director of the Minnesota real estate investment firm AEI Capital.  records Bluestem Prairie AEI Capital Republicans for Honesty in Government shares its address with that of AEI Capital. The group was dissolved in 2009, but was reinstated in March 2017.  However, despite being the man behind a non-profit organization that labels itself Republican, Johnson is a prolific donor to Democratic candidates and the Minnesota branch of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party (DFL). Federal Election Commission records show that a "Robert P. Johnson," "Robert Johnson" or "Bob Johnson" at "AEI Fund Management" or related company names in Minnesota has donated a total of $43,830.50 in federal campaign funding since 2004. All of it went to DFL and Democratic candidates or political action committees. records Johnson told the Minnesota news web site GoMN that he had leaned towards the Republican party in the past, but switched allegiances after what the web site described as a shift to the right within the GOP.  GoMN "My political position was staked out decades ago and has not changed," he told GoMN. "What has changed is the positions of the parties and their platforms." Federal Election Commission records show that in 1980, Johnson did donate $500 to the Minnesota Independent-Republican Finance Committee, his only non-Democratic federal election donation. records However, Johnson registered "Republicans for Honesty in Government" in 2006, two years after he began donating exclusively to Democratic and DFL candidates, including $7,000 to former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, and more than $10,000 to the Minnesota DFL party.  $7,000 We asked Johnson questions about his involvement with Republicans for Honesty in Government, his party affiliation, his political donations, and the purpose of the billboards. We did not receive a response. He told GoMN that the billboards were intended to provoke Minnesotans to think more carefully about their electoral choices"to maybe rub their chin metaphorically a little bit and wonder, what kind of decisions are we making?" Sorenson, Sally Jo. "Is Billboard on Highway 52 for Real?; Or, Who Are Those 'Republicans for Honesty in Government'".
 Bluestem Prairie. 2 January 2018. McLaughlin, Shaymus. "Who is the Group Behind the Donald Trump 'BIG MISTAKE' Billboard?"
 GoMN. 3 January 2018. Claim:  Actress Cindy Williams penned an editorial denouncing a proposed pay raise for the military. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2001] This is how we treat our public servants. One story among many! Salute to our Service Men & Women On 12 Jan, Ms Cindy Williams (from Laverne and Shirley TV show) wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year-citing that the stated 13% wage  gap was bogus. A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this!  Ms. Williams:  I just had the pleasure of reading your column of 12 Jan 00, "Our GIs earn enough," and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account.  Checking my latest leave and earnings statement (LES), see that I make $1,117.80, before taxes. After taxes, I take home $ 874.20. When I run that through Windows' Calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after. I work in the Air Force Network Control Center (AFNCC), where I am part of the team responsible for the administration of a 25,000-host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for Network Technicians in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience with my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year, nor does it pay less than this. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum. I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions. Also, you tout increases to Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (housing and food allowances, respectively) as being a further boon to an already overcompensated force. Again, I'm curious as to where this money has gone, as BAH and BAS were both slashed 15% in the Hill AFB area effective in January 00. Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you have NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces. Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off AFDC, WIC, and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for Saudi  I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make, though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience." As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone  obviously they've been squandering the vast piles of cash the DOD has been giving them. Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a DFP (Defensive Fire Position, the modern-day foxhole), shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't nearly be long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your op-ed piece. But, tomorrow from Sarajevo, I will defend to the death your right to say it. You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment rights and every other right you cherish. On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective nose at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies. And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve? Rubbish! A1C Michael BraggHill AFB AFNCC  IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND SHOW OUR SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN  FIGHTING MEN & WOMEN. THANK YOU. THIS LETTER SHOULD BE APPLAUDED BY ANYONE WHO'S EVER SERVED OR HAD A FAMILY MEMBER SERVE IN THE ARMED FORCES! THIS YOUNG MAN DESERVES A MEDAL !!! Variations:  An August 2009 version changed the responding airman from one posted to Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah, to one posted to Afghanistan, replying from Kabul. Origins:  The editorial critical of military pay raises alluded to above and the irate response to it penned by an airman at Hill Air Force Base are genuine, but the author of the original editorial has been mistaken for her (more famous) namesake. Actress Cindy Williams, who starred in the hit 1973 film American Graffiti and portrayed sweet, lovable Shirley Feeney on the popular 1970s sitcom Laverne & Shirley hasn't been writing newspaper articles denouncing our "overpaid" servicemen.  Back in January 2000,a different Cindy Williams, one who was then working as a senior research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and who had once served as assistant director for national security in the Congressional  Cindy Williams Budget Office, contributed an op-ed piece to the Washington Post (not the WashingtonTimes) in which she criticized a proposed 25% pay increase for military personnel (on top of a 4.85% raise that had just been enacted).  In her article, Ms. Williams maintained that claims that servicemen in the military suffered a 13 percent "pay gap" relative to the private sector were inaccurate, and that military personnel were already well paid compared to the average American.    The full text of the editorial ("Our GIs Earn Enough") by the non-actress Cindy Williams can be found here.  The response to that editorial which is reproduced in the example block above was indeed drafted by the airman named, although it was not itself published in Washington Post.    here The misidentification of the original article's author has caused considerable grief for Cindy Williams the actress: "I've done everything to try to squelch it, but nothing seems to work," says Miss Williams of "Laverne and Shirley" fame. "I have people writing and calling me, even my friends, asking: 'Are you against a pay raise for the military?' And I reply, 'You know me, I'd fight [in the military] if I could, because I am such a patriot.'" Ironically enough, much of the angry correspondence (even "hate mail") the actress has received has come from the military ranks. "It's been really worrisome," says the actress. "It's terrible to malign people like that. I don't know where to go to say I didn't do this." Versions of this article circulated since 2009 have stated that Cindy Williams (the one who actually did write the editorial) is the Obama administration'sAssistant Director for National Security in the Congressional Budget Office.  This is not correct  Ms. Williams  held that position from 1994 to 1997, during the Clinton administration.   Last updated:  8 October 2015    Williams, Cindy.  "Our GIs Earn Enough."   The Washington Post.  12 January 2000  (p. A19). Barack Obama and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, lately have aired similar concerns about the future of working-class Americans, though they differ over what to do. In hisJanuary 2015 State of the Union address, the Democratic president said he wants towork with Congress to offer free community college to students while creating other education, child care and retirement savings programs to help the middle class. Funding, hes proposed, would come from a $320 billion tax increase on the nations highest earners and financial institutions including investment banks. After Obamas speech, Cruz told Fox News he was disappointed with Obamas goals to increase government spending and taxes, which he described as hurting hardworking Americans. Then Cruz said the countrys rich and powerful have gotten fat and happy on Obamas watch. Today the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928, Cruz said. Take that, Mister President! And was Cruz right? Cruz cites West Coast economist By email, Cruz spokesman Phil Novack indicated Cruz does not agree with Obama, who said in his speech he wants to reduce the top 1 percents after-tax income. Novack said Cruz, rather than increase taxes on the wealthy, believes the only way to jumpstart the economyis by championing pro-growth policies like energy development and aflatter, simpler tax structure. And, Novack said, Cruz drew his comparison to 1928 froma reportby the Pew Research Center citing research byEmmanuel Saez, a University of California, Berkeley economics professor who studies wealth and income inequality. Saez helps steer theWorld Top Incomes Database, sponsored by the Paris School of Economics, a research center and conglomerate of French universities offering graduate degrees and post-graduate fellowships in economics. The database, in place since 2011, shows the distribution of top incomes for more than 20 countries using data from millions of tax returns collected over about 100 years. By email, Saez said he and economists includingThomas Pikettybuilt the database from sources including public-use files of individual tax returns. The public-use micro-files are blurred to preserve each payers confidentiality, Saez said. A closer look To check on changes over time for ourselves, we built a chart fromthe database. The resulting data, covering 1913, the earliest checkable year, to 2012, shows 1928 and 2012 to be the top two years where the top 1 percent of the richest Americans (the richest of the rich)earned the greatest share of the nations income, whichthe government breaks downinto 15 categories including wages, salaries and self-employment income plus income from dividends and interest. In 1928, the top 1 percentof earners, then comprised of about 1.2 million residents, together held 19.6 percent of the nations income. In 2008, the year Obama was elected president, the top 1 percent possessed nearly 18 percent. The 1 percent collectively saw its share of the nations income escalate nearly 5 percent through the first three years of Obamas presidency. And in his fourth year, 2012, the 1 percent (nearly 314 million residents) controlled 19.34 percent. According to the database, that was the greatest share these wealthiest Americans had held since 1928, as Cruz said.(No. 3 goes to 1927, when the top 1 percent had 18.7 percent of U.S. income.) Top 15 years the richest American taxpayers had the greatest share of U.S. income 1913 through 2012  Year Top 1% income share 1928 19.6 2012 19.34 1927 18.68 1916 18.57 1929 18.42 2007 18.33 1914 18.16 2006 18.06 1926 18.01 1913 17.96 2008 17.89 2005 17.68 1936 17.64 1917 17.6 1925 17.6 Source:The World Top Incomes Database, 2011 (accessed Jan. 30, 2015) By email, Saez told usObama and Congress (which shifted to Republican control in his tenure) did little to address wealth inequality up until 2012 as the country recovered from the Great Recession -- which officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009. In aSept. 3, 2013, report, Saez wrote that in 2012, average real  incomes per familyin the top 1 percent of earners nationally increased by 19.6 percent, while average incomes among the rest of us grew1 percent. The report said the entire surge in top 1 percent incomes in 2012 could be a result of income re-timing -- when people hold off on making payments so they can report a higher income to take advantage of lower tax rates. By email, Saez said he expects the top 1 percents income share for 2014 to prove slightly lower than in 2012 as a result of tax increasesapproved by Congress and Obama in 2013raising the nations marginal income-tax rate from 35 to 39.6 percent for married couples earning more than $450,000 annually, starting in 2013. That deal, which also whittled tax deductions for high-earning businesses and individuals, helped the government avoidthe fiscal cliff, a term describing the looming impact of tax cuts initiated by President George W. Bush expiring at the end of 2012 at the same time congressionally mandated spending reductions were due to kick in. Questions about income-inequality research The World Top Incomes Database and Saezs work have become popular sources forpoliticiansto cite when discussing income and wealth inequality. Still, some experts have raised doubts about what goes into the Piketty-Saez inequality measurements. By email, Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank, said the Saez-Piketty data understate income growth by the bottom 99 percent. That is, he noted, Piketty and Saez limit their focus to pre-tax private income including wages, self-employment earnings, dividends, interest, rental payments and, in some cases, capital gains. The result, Burtless said, is the database doesnt consider other sources of income such as Social Security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, government reimbursement of medical bills and untaxed fringe benefits such as employer contributions to health and retirement plans. If we include these income items, the bottom 99 percent of income recipients has enjoyed much faster increases in income than whats shown by Piketty and Saez, Burtless wrote. Burtless suggested the best statistics on U.S. income inequality come from the nonpartisanCongressional Budget Office. That's because CBO constructs 3 measures of income -- gross market income, pretax income (gross market income plus cash and no cash government transfers), and after-tax income (pre-tax income minus federal income, payroll, and excise taxes), Burtless said in his email. CBO data indicates that from 2009 to 2010, the top 1 percents share of income increased from 13.3 percent to 14.9 percent. (To refresh, Piketty and Saez say their research shows the top 1 percents share of income escalating from 16.68 percent to 17.45 percent.) Next, we talked to Robert Litan, another economist with the Brookings Institution, about why income inequality escalated so quickly in Obamas first term. By email, Litan said reasons for the rising share of the top 1 percents income include rising CEO pay relative to workers, extraordinary success of tech entrepreneurs in particular, made possible by Internet + globalization, and successful financiers, especially hedge fund managers. AJune 12, 2014 articleby the liberal Economic Policy Institute also highlights inequality in earnings and compensation between CEOs and typical workers. Burtless and Litan also told us by email Congress and Obama could not have done much to affect the percentage increase of the top 1 percents income based on Piketty-Saez measurements. The Congress and president have a bigger direct impact on after-tax income than on pre-tax income because their decisions directly affect the tax burdens and government transfer payments of families in different positions in the income distribution, Burtless said. Our ruling Cruz said: Today the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928. Cruz accurately recapped calculations of income by respected researchers though this statement fails to note there are some income streams not part of the cited calculations that would tend to help those of us in the bottom 99 percent, relatively speaking. Also, tax changes that took effect in 2013 may slightly be reducing how much of the nations income is held by the top 1 percent. Mark this statement 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. This article discussed the potential implications of a case that was, at the time of writing, undecided by the Supreme Court. On 17 June 2019 the Supreme Court decided that case, rejecting arguments that could have resulted in a stronger presidential pardon. Far from Kavanaugh's being a deciding vote on the case, the court ruled 7-2 against the notion that Federal and State prosecution for the same crime violates the so-called double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented. decided On 29 November 2015, a motorist named Terance Gamble, who had been convicted of second degree robbery seven years earlier, was pulled over by an Alabama police officer because of a faulty headlight on his vehicle. Upon searching the car, the officer found a handgun, among other items. It is illegal under both Alabama law and United States law for convicted felons to possess firearms, and Gamble was eventually sentenced to one year in prison on that charge by the state of Alabama. Terance Gamble During Gamble's prosecution under Alabama law for possession of a firearm as a felon, the Federal Government also charged him with the same crime. Gambles lawyers argued that this second conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitutions ban on double jeopardy, which is intended to protect people from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. The double jeopardy clause is found in Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states (in part) that "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Specifically, the clause has been interpreted to be a prohibition on: interpreted Gamble has been in federal prison since entering a guilty plea on 18 October 2016 that allowed him to appeal his case. In June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his argument that he has been unconstitutionally punished multiple times for the same crime. While the case is about the constitutionality of a man being charged twice for the same gun possession incident in a narrow sense, the case more broadly has the potential to significantly alter 150 years of Supreme Court precedent. Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has allowed for one explicit exception to the Constitutions double jeopardy protections: cases of dual sovereignty (or separate sovereigns) which stem from view that the federal government and state governments are distinct entities with occasionally overlapping jurisdictions. (Exceptions to this exception exist which seek to limit double prosecutions at the federal level, but as this case shows they do not always have that effect.) federal level, This separate sovereigns exception to double jeopardy, though built on several previous rulings, was made most explicit in a 1920s bootlegging case, United States v. Lanza, which allowed a man to be charged with bootlegging crimes by both the state of Washington and the federal government. With respect to that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued: United States v. Lanza We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. The separate sovereigns exemption has for much of its history been a controversial precedent which critics maintain is not rooted in the original text of the Constitution but is instead cobbled together from different partially relevant Supreme Court decisions -- decisions rooted in a time when the federal government was less powerful and whose questions never directly sought to address the explicit matter of double punishment for the same crime in state and federal jurisdictions. This argument is reflected in Gambles filing. filing The government argues in this case that the precedent is well-established through myriad Supreme Court cases and consistent with the Founding Fathers' vision of state and federal government duality: The dual-sovereignty principle has been long held, and consistently endorsed by this Court, which has recognized its soundness as a matter of [p]recedent, experience, and reason alike, The Court explained the roots of the principle more than 150 years ago. And in 1959, the Court described a challenge to the dual-sovereignty doctrine as not a new question, having been invoked and rejected in over twenty cases" ... Each sovereign is entitled to exercis[e] its own sovereignty to determin[e] what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity and prosecute the offender without interference by the other. Under petitioners interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, one sovereigns efforts (successful or not) to enforce its own laws would vitiate the other sovereigns similar law-enforcement prerogatives. But that cannot be squared with the Constitutions bedrock structure of governance. In this case, Gamble has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to rule on a single specific question: Whether the Court should overrule the separate sovereigns exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. The reason Gamble v. United States is generating buzz from people other than constitutional law scholars is that the separate sovereigns exception also prevents President Trump from pardoning people for state crimes. Under current Supreme Court precedent, a presidential pardon of an individual does not prevent that individual from being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes under state law. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, Adam J. Adler wrote in the Yale Law Review, as long as two offenses are defined by different jurisdictions, they cannot constitute the same offense. wrote The Congressional Research Service issued an August 2018 report on the potential ramifications of the case, and this report included a discussion of its possible effect on the presidential pardon power: report The Gamble case may nevertheless have significant collateral legal effects ... A win for Gamble could also indirectly strengthen the Presidents pardon power, by precluding a state from prosecuting an already-pardoned defendant who has gone to trial on an overlapping offense. Some pundits have speculated that the reason why certain politicians seem to be in a rush to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that is that he has a notably strong view of presidential powers and therefore would be a vote in favor of Gamble and for an expansion of presidential pardon powers -- and the Supreme Court announced they would be hearing this case the day after Justice Kennedys retirement. This temporal proximity has prompted some commenters to opine that the rush might be motivated by a desire to limit the presidents legal liability in the Russia probe and other investigations: strong view day after   While we cannot speculate on the motives of politicians who are supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, The Atlantic reported that prominent political legal scholars agree in a general sense with the view of this cases having importance with regard to President Trumps pardon power: reported Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trumps power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldnt be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example -- he was convicted in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud -- both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws ... If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed ... then Trumps pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action. If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally -- but with some existing limits --can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon, explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The Atlantic also reported that at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who approved Kavanaugh for a floor vote before the full Senate, Orrin Hatch, has publicly weighed in on the topic (unmotivated, he says, by the implications for the pardon power), filing an Amicus Curiae brief in favor of Gamble which argued that the pervasive federalization of criminal law to cover conduct that traditionally was prosecuted and punished by the states, and that falls within the states core legislative interests, threatens to undermine the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause unless the dual sovereignty doctrine is overruled in this context. Amicus Curiae Oral arguments for the case have not been scheduled but will occur during this Supreme Court term. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could become a deciding vote in the case. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  24 October 2017. Cornell Legal Information Institute.  Double Jeopardy."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. U.S. Department of Justice.  9-2.031 - Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy ("Petite Policy")."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. Supreme Court of the United States.  United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377."
  11 December 1922. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for the United States in Opposition (No. 17-646)."
  16 January 2018. Adler, Adam J.  "Dual Sovereignty, Due Process, and Duplicative Punishment: A New Solution to an Old Problem."
  Yale Law Journal.  November 2014. Hsin, S.  "When Does Double Prosecution Count as Double Jeopardy?"
  Congressional Research Service.  16 August 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "7 Legal Experts on How Kavanaugh Views Executive Power  And What It Could Mean for Mueller."
  Vox.  11 July 2018. Vazquez, Maegan.  "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear 'Double Jeopardy' Case in the Fall."
  CNN.  22 June 2018. Bertrand, Natasha.  "A Supreme Court Case Could Liberate Trump to Pardon His Associates."
  The Atlantic.  25 September 2018 Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief of Senator Orrin Hatch as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  11 September 2018. Updated [17 June 2019]: Added note that the Supreme Court ruled on this case. Claim:  Gasoline purchasers who fail to press the "Clear" button on gas pumps after refueling risk additional charges appearing on their credit/debit cards.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2008] Jim just told me about something that happened to one of his coworkers.  She used her credit/debit card to purchase gas at the pump (like most of us do). She received her receipt like normal. However, when she checked her statement, there were 2 $50 charges added in addition to her purchase. Upon investigation, she found out that because she did not press the 'clear' button on the pump, the employee inside the store was able to use her card to purchase his/her own gas!  To keep this from happening, after you get your receipt, you must press the 'CLEAR' button or your information will be stored until the next customer inserts their card. Be sure to tell all your friends/family so that this doesn't happen to them!  [Collected via e-mail, February 2010] A friend just told me about something that happened to one of his coworkers. She used her credit/debit card to purchase gas at the pump (like most ofus do).She received her receipt like normal. However, when she checked her statement, there were 2  $50.00 charges added in addition to her purchase.  Upon investigation, she found out that because she did not press the 'clear' button on the pump, the employee inside the store was able to use her card to purchase his/her own gas! To keep this from happening, after you get your receipt, you must press the 'CLEAR' button or your information will be stored until the next customer inserts their card. Be sure to tell all your friends/family so that this doesn't happen to them. I had never noticed the clear button but I gotgas the other day and sure enough it is there.  I shall be using it from now on. Origins:  This heads-up about pressing the 'clear' button after purchasing gasoline at a pump using a credit or debit card began appearing in inboxes in early May 2008.  Those in the know say there's nothing to this notion that pressing the 'clear' button after refueling will safeguard the pump's user from having his credit card accessed by future users, or indeed, have any other effect. As W. Michael Hardin, an employee of Dresser Wayne, a manufacturer of gas station fuel dispensing units, says: "If a fuel dispenser is operating in its normal mode, the way it was designed to work, your transaction is complete as soon as you hang  up the nozzle.  There is no need to do anything else at that point or press any buttons.  If for some reason you hang up the nozzle incorrectly, and the transaction does not complete, a receipt will not be printed, which would be an indication that something is wrong."   In other words, a properly functioning gas pump will conclude its transaction when its nozzle is returned to its cradle. There is no magic to be had from pressing the 'clear' button: a gas pump that is working the way it should will have already closed the transaction by that point, and a misfunctioning one isn't going to be prompted into righting itself by your mashing the 'clear' button a few times.  Look instead to your receipt. That the pump dispensed one after you recradled the gas nozzle is a sign that all went well. If a receipt does not present itself, a trip inside the gas station to discuss the matter with the clerk on duty is in order. Some have been taken in by the false alert, such as the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office which was moved to post the warning on its web site. (That office did subsequently post a retraction which set the matter straight.) retraction While some dishonest gas station employees have run additional charges through customers' credit and debit cards, this form of crime is usually a matter of the miscreants' charging some cards two or more times to cover for other fuel purchases paid in cash (which was pocketed by the thieving employees, with the false charges laid against the credit or debit cards of victims used to account for the decrease in the station's fuel inventory). In May 2008, two employees of a gas station in Hopatcong, New Jersey, were caught and charged with theft for attempting to run such a scheme. However, a far more likely threat to the sanctity of one's credit or debit card at a gas station is posed by those who, during the process of refueling their own vehicles, surreptitiously affix 'skimmers' to card-reading mechanisms at gas pumps. (Skimmers collect data from the magnetic strips of cards, information which is later copied to counterfeit cards and used to empty bank accounts or to run up charges against credit accounts.) After installing the skimmers, the thieves quietly withdraw and return later to retrieve their data-enriched devices. Should you discover you've been the victim of any sort of credit or debit card fraud, contact your bank immediately.  The sooner you can get in touch with them, and the more information you can provide about where you used the now-compromised card, the better. Regarding debit cards, keep in mind that they do not afford users the same level of protection against fraud that credit cards do. As a general precaution, make it your practice to examine your checking account history and balance several times a month rather than waiting for a statement to arrive in the mail. Report lost cards or suspected unauthorized use immediately. (Generally, the faster you report an incorrect or fraudulent charge, the less you will be liable for.)  Consider using credit cards instead of debit cards whenever possible because it is often easier to get unauthorized charges reversed from such instruments. Also, having the problem isolated to your credit card rather than your debit card means not having to deal with the headache of bounced checks during the time it takes to get the matter straightened out. Barbara "credit where credit's due" Mikkelson Last updated:   19 June 2014    Moszczynski, Joe.  "Four More Step Up in Gas Station Credit Scam."   The [Newark] Star-Ledger.  15 May 2008  (p. 41). 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 In October 2017, multiple versions of a dubious post titled "Pizza Hut is giving 3 FREE Large Pizza Coupon on their 58th Anniversary" circulated on Facebook. The link lead to suspicious domains including pizzahutfree.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, and massiveoffers.xyz/p/, none of which followed the proper formatting for a pizzahut.com subdomain, which is "link.pizzahut.com." Those who clicked through found a page that looked somewhat legitimate, but showed signs of being a very common survey scam. Users were first asked a series of questions: page very survey scam   The page followed a common scammer template of appropriating Pizza Hut's logo and Facebook's visual interface, but sloppily boasted that entrants had "a chance to get [a] Papa [John's] Coupon." Any interaction with the prompts (again mentioning Papa John's 58th anniversary, not Pizza Hut's) led to a screen encouraging potential victims to spread the scam further on Facebook:   Underneath the "Congratulations" interface was a series of what appeared to be comments from real Facebook users who'd successfully redeemed the purported coupon. All of the profiles featured were for individuals with jobs displayed as "MD, at the Hospital":   Pizza Hut addressed a previous flood of customer queries on their Facebook wall during a similar scam in May 2016: Facebook users continue to regularly encounter survey scams (quite often the "anniversary" version) on the social network. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau advised users how not to fall prey: anniversary article Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Patterson, Emily.  Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card. 
 Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. ]In May 2015, a fraudulent offer for $200 Home Depot coupons started circulating on Facebook. The message contained a link that redirected bargain hunters to a web site adorned with Home Depot's logo that has nothing to do with the real Home Depot:   The $200 Home Depot coupon scam is very similar to other schemes that targeted Costco, Amazon, and Kroger shoppers. While each scam has slight variations, they all feature three main components. First, they require people to like or share the message on Facebook in an attempt to spread the scam around the Internet. Second, they direct people to complete a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and credit card numbers. Lastly, these scams never end with a "free" rewards, because users must first agree to sign up for several costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print to claim their coupons. Costco Amazon Kroger In April 2017, another Facebook coupon scam targeted Home Depot. In that iteration the chain was purportedly doling out $50 coupons "to celebrate Mother's Day, and links directed users to www.homedepot.com-grabitnow.us (a URL clearly unaffiliated with the legitimate Home Depot website): Home Depot   Home Depot didn't address the 2017 Facebook coupon scam on their social media channels as of 24 April 2017, but it was nevertheless clearly not a legitimate promotion affiliated with the chain. The Better Business Bureau gave these three tips to identify scams on Facebook: Facebook Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Though consumer advocates have long called for changing the payday lending law in Ohio, a criminal investigation has resulted in the resignation of the state House speaker. Republican Cliff Rosenberger resigned in April as the FBI was investigating his foreign travel sponsored by payday-lending lobbyists. He denied wrongdoing. Rosenbergers resignation brought votes on legislation screeching to a halt, including aproposed bill to strengthen consumer protections for payday loans. Consumer advocates are collecting signatures to put similar language before voters on the ballot, likely in 2019. The Ohio Consumer Lenders Association, which represents the industry,opposes the measures. Richard Cordray, the Democrat running for governor against Republican Mike DeWine, has criticized the state law. The current shutdown of the State House has delayed legislation addressing payday lending, where Ohio's laws are now the worst in the nation, CordraytweetedMay 17. Things have gotten so bad that it is legal to charge 594 percent interest on loans that end up ruining peoples lives. Unconscionable. Cordrays statement comparing Ohios payday industry to the nation comes from a 2014 report by Pew Charitable Trusts. Cordray worked on changing rules on payday lending on a national level when he was the first director of the federal Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. The bureaufinalized ruleson payday lending in October 2017, several weeks before he resigned to run for governor.Cordray has attacked his successor, Mick Mulvaney,for attempting to roll back the rules. Payday loans are small, short-term loans that borrowers promise to repay out of their next paycheck at ahigh rateof interest. Aboutthree dozen stateshave their own payday laws, including Ohio. Proponents argue that the working poor need payday loans to cover their bills, while opponents argue that they trap borrowers in a cycle of debt. Aboutone in 10 adults in Ohiohave taken out a payday loan. In 2008, Ohio lawmakers approved the Short Term Loan Act. The law, opposed by the industry, includedprotections for borrowers, such as capping the loan at $500 and the annual interest rates for payday loans at 28 percent. However, payday lenders found a loophole: They registered as mortgage lenders instead. TheOhio Supreme Courtupheld the law in 2014, prompting one concurring judge to ask, Were the lobbyists smarter than the legislators? Did the legislators realize that the bill was smoke and mirrors and would accomplish nothing? Ohio is the only state where lenders operate under such a statute that was not intended for payday loans, said Alex Horowitz, senior research officer for Pew Charitable Trust's consumer finance project, which has researched payday laws in the states for many years. In a2014 analysisof states payday lending laws, Pew didnt flat-out label Ohio as the worst in the nation for payday lending. But it did find that borrowers were charged much more than their peers in many other states. By examining payday loan prices in each state from the four largest lenders, Pew found that over five months a $300 payday loan would cost an Ohio borrower $680 in interest and fees, which equals an average annual percentage rate of 591 percent (which is close to the 594 percent figure cited by Cordray.) No other state had a higher rate, according to the Pew analysis. The interest and fees amount in Ohio was slightly exceeded by Texas, but Texas has more protections for consumers, including a 180-day loan limit that Ohio doesnt have. While the typical loan is technically two weeks, in the majority of cases the borrower ends up in a cycle of loans for several months. While most states that allow payday lending cap loans at $500, Ohio lenders dont operate under the Short Term Loan Act, so they can make loans that are double or even triple the amount of conventional payday loans. The Center for Responsible Lending, an organization that calls for more safeguards for consumers,found in 2015that payday loan storefronts in Ohio advertised rates of more than 600 percent annual percentage rate. Diane Standaert, director of state policy, said that since that time some storefronts now reflect rates between 300 and 400 percent for some loans. But this is basically comparing the differences between (1) a very bad loan, and (2) another very bad loan, she said. The effort to change Ohios payday lending law gained steam in March 2017 whenHouse Bill 123was introduced by State Reps.Kyle Koehler,a Republican of Springfield, and Michael Ashford, a Toledo Democrat. The bill is similar toColorados payday lending lawwhich consumer advocates have upheld as a model example. After languishing for a year, itpassed a House committeein April 2018 about a week after Rosenberger resigned, but a full vote was placed on hold while lawmakers deadlocked over picking a new speaker. On June 7, theHouse passed the bill and it now heads to the Senate. The bill would cap the interest rate at 28 percent and a fee of up to $20 a month, which would mean that a borrower of $300 would pay $96 in interest and fees. Cordray said, Ohio's (payday lending) laws are now the worst in the nation. Things have gotten so bad that it is legal to charge 594 percent interest on loans. Pew Charitable Trusts found in 2014 that over five months a $300 payday loan would cost an Ohio borrower $680 in interest and fees, which equals an average annual percentage rate of 591 percent. While the report didnt call out Ohio as the worst in the nation, no other state had a rate that was higher, according to the report. The difference between the 591 percent cited in the report and the 594 percent tweeted by Cordray is negligible. We rate this statement True. '