Did President Trump submit his re-election papers early in order to prevent nonprofits from engaging in political speech?
On 29 January 2017, a community member at the Daily Kos posted in a string of tweets by "The Resisterhood" account, which claimed that because President Donald Trump had filed early for re-election, it means that nonprofit organizations cannotoppose him without risking their nonprofit status. The story, which was widely shared, was created in a portion of the site that allows Daily Kos community members to create their own posts: claimed   code Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. It is true that President Trump filed a letteron Inauguration Day, 20 January 2017, notifying the Federal Elections Commission that he has met the legal threshold for filing for reelection in 2020 (though the letter says that it is not a formal candidate announcement). letter The move appears to be geared toward getting a fundraising head start, as legal experts agree that Trump becoming a de facto candidate for 2020 on his first day in office will have no effecton the activities of charities. In the era of perpetual campaigning, tax laws have been interpreted by the Internal Revenue Service to mean that charities are free to criticize or praise public office holders so long as they avoid electioneering  which they are prohibited from doing anyway, said Marc Owens, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney whorepresents nonprofit organizations: Even though Trump is a candidate for the 2020 election now that he's registered, that really should not stop any charity from commenting on how hes doing as president of the United Statesnow as long as they don't put in in the context of the 2020 election...The reality is that as long as they don'tmention the election, which they shouldn't be doing anyway as charities, they're going to be fine. He added the caveat: "Thats assuming Trump obeys the law." The Lawyers Alliance for New York later sent out a notice addressing the rumor: notice False Rumor: Nonprofit organizations cannot criticize President Trump because he filed a Statement of Candidacy form with the Federal Election Commission regarding the 2020 election. True: Organizations with 501(c)(3) status cannot take a position on who should win an election, such as the 2020 Presidential election. But all public charities can: criticize or praise sitting public officials, including the President, for actions that they take while in office. take a position on issues, such as environment, refugees, or school reform. take a position on specific government actions, including Executive Orders, and proposed laws and regulations. Taking such a position may count towards a public charitys limit on lobbying activity, and if the charity spends more than a minimal amount of money on this activity it may be required to register as a lobbyist, but only if it asks a public official to act or asks members of the public to contact a public official. Notre Dame law professor Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer agreed, saying in the modern era, most politicians are in a constant state of campaigning, whether they are formally declared as candidates or not: Charities can praise or criticize [for example] representativesas long as they do it in a way thats about them being in the House. The views [of the IRS] has always been obviously you can praise or criticize someone because they're a public official, as a public official, even if they're running. Loyola law professor Ellen Aprill concurred, noting that Trump himself had advocated for lifting the prohibition on charities and campaigning: It seems inconsistent with the intent behind the campaign intervention prohibition for a president to prevent 501(c)(3)'s from criticizing his policies and actions by declaring a candidacy so far in advance. Moreover, Trump is on record as wanting to eliminate the campaign intervention prohibition, although we have not seen anything on that since he became President. Nonprofits can address current topics like the environment, President Trump's proposal to build a new U.S.-Mexico border wall, or his recent executive order restricting refugee entry into the United States. They are also free to litigate on causes, as the American Civil Liberties Union and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have done in recent high-profile cases. The fact that he has filed campaign paperwork with the FEC early does not mean any of these organizations are suddenly muzzled. Mayer also pointed out that pro-President Trump nonprofits are under the same laws as all the others, which casts further doubt on his early re-election filing being about anything other than getting a fundraising advantage. Pollwatcher."Trump Filed For Reelection In 2020 On Jan 20 2017. Why It Matters."
Daily Kos (community post).29 January 2017. The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations
Internal Revenue Service. Lawyers Alliance for New York."Nonprofit Organizations Can Speak Out About Controversial Government Actions."
31 January 2017. Gold, Matea, andNarayanswamy, Anu."Trump already has socked away more than $7 million for his 2020 reelection."
The Washington Post.31 January 2017.
On Aug. 23, 2020, bystanders' cellphone videos captured a white police officer in Kenosha, Wisconsin, shooting a Black man, Jacob Blake, multiple times as he opened the door to his vehicle. The footage went viral on social media and sparked deadly protests in the lakeside city over racism in American policing. Jacob Blake deadly protests One video, which a neighbor recorded from a second-story apartment nearby, showed Blake, 29, trying to get into his SUV from the driver-side door as a police officer pointed a gun at him, grabbed him by his shirt and then fired several times  shooting Blake in the back. Another clip documented the scene from the ground level, as children and other witnesses watched from a yard. The officer who fired his weapon was identified as Rusten Sheskey, according to Wisconsin's attorney general. video clip identified The day after the shooting, which left Blake paralyzed from the waist down as of this writing, advocates for police reform argued that if those witnesses had not taken out their phones, the public would not have known about the officers' use of potentially-lethal force. It was unclear whether dashboard cameras on squad cars captured the incident, and Kenosha officers do not wear body cameras  leading tools for holding officers accountable for their actions. paralyzed Civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing Blake's family, as well as other high-profile cases alleging wrongful use of force by police against Black Americans, including the relatives of George Floyd, tweeted: representing George Floyd,  We considered his underlying claim to be this: Kenosha city leaders approved an "ordinance" in 2017 that "required" all of Kenosha's roughly 200 police officers to wear body cameras, but, despite that active policy, the city had not purchased the technology as of August 2020. Additionally, the lawyer alleged the city was planning to buy the devices in 2022. First, to find any evidence of a 2017 policy that would make body cameras mandatory for all officers, Snopes combed through meeting agendas and minutes for the Kenosha Common Council  the city's 17-member group with the authority to write legislation for the city of roughly 100,000 people between Milwaukee and Chicago. We found an archived video of a council committee meeting on Feb. 27, 2017, where former Alderperson Kevin Mathewson asked the group to approve a formal request for the mayor to set aside city funding in the following year's budget to outfit officers with body cameras. "The city, unfortunately, has been a little slow to implement much technology," he said in his testimony. "If we can help document incidents better, and give the [district attorney] tools to make quicker convictions with less resources, we can save cops from violence ... I think it's a great thing." Roughly one month later, on March 20, 2017, the council unanimously approved the below-displayed resolution  not an ordinance and not Mathewson's budget proposal  that formalized city leaders' support for the devices. But that move was largely a statement to urge state legislators and then-Gov. Scott Walker to establish guidelines for how local police departments store and release the cameras' data, not an enforceable policy to make the devices mandatory for Kenosha officers. approved    Notably, the resolution stated: [I]mplementation of Body Worn Cameras for officers of the Kenosha Police Department is dependent on resolution of policy concerns associated with matters such as usage, storage, requirements, Public Record limitation, and privacy issues involving Body Worn Cameras.  In other words, it was true to state Kenosha city leaders expressed support for equipping police officers with body cameras in 2017, but they did not mandate the technology. Rather, its adoption hinged on if or when the state passed an all-encompassing law governing the devices, per the resolution. (In February 2020, Gov. Tony Evers passed a law outlining body camera regulations for police agencies.) passed A note on semantics here: According to the city of Kenosha's Code of General Ordinances, the council adopts both ordinances and resolutions with its legislative authority, though the latter are temporary in nature and often used for establishing fees and permits, while the former are municipal laws. Calling the March 2017 measure about body cameras an ordinance, like the claim alleged, was incorrect; it did not create an enforceable policy. Code of General Ordinances Next, we searched for any proof to confirm or deny another aspect of the claim: that the city had not purchased the devices as of August 2020. We learned that was true. A February 2020 story by Kenosha News said neither the city police department nor the Kenosha county Sheriff's Department used body-worn cameras. And the day after Blake's shooting, on Aug. 24, Kenosha Mayor John Antaramian confirmed to reporters that the city had not yet purchased the technology but had plans to do so. story confirmed Lastly, we looked for documentation of those efforts that would tell us if the city was indeed preparing to spend the money in 2022 and then deploy the cameras after that. For that step, Snopes reviewed the city's 2020 operating budget, which included a four-year plan for spending on police department projects. That 445-page document included the below-displayed table and confirmed that the city was indeed preparing to spend $200,000 on police body cameras in 2022. 445-page document  Rocco LaMacchia, chairman of the councils public safety committee, told The Associated Press the city initially planned to buy the devices in 2020, but funding shortfalls and technological concerns prompted the city to delay the purchase for two years. We have moved it back so many times, he said in the Aug. 25, 2020, story. I got a feeling this is going to move up on the ladder really fast because of whats going on around the United States right now." The Associated Press In sum, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehood. It was accurate to claim Kenosha leaders unanimously endorsed the use of body cameras in 2017, though it was false to say they created an enforceable policy, or an ordinance, to require all police officers to wear the devices. Additionally, it was true to assert the city had not bought the devices as of August 2020 and was planning to make the purchase in 2022. Mathewson, Kevin.  "Urge The Mayor To Include Funding For Police Body Worn Cameras (BWC) In The 2018 CIP."
  City of Kenosha.  Accessed 26 August 2020. Wisconsin State Legislature.  "Senate Bill 50."
  Accessed 26 August 2020. Police Department.  "2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan."
  Accessed 26 August 2020. Zampanti, Jeffrey.  "Body Cameras Gaining Popularity Despite Challenges."
  Kenosha News.  29 February 2020. Foley, Ryan.  "Kenosha Delayed Body Cameras For Years Before Black Shooting."
 The Associated Press.  25 August 2020. Kenosha News.  "In Photos: County Board Committees Consider Body Cams For Sheriff's Department."
  17 July 2020. Kenosha News. "Body Camera Funds Shouldn't Go By The Wayside."
  27 March 2020. Jones, Meg and Joe Taschler. "Less Than 3 Minutes Passed Between When Kenosha Police Arrived And When Jacob Blake Was Shot, According To Dispatch Audio."
  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 25 August 2020. Bosman, Julie, and Sarah Mervosh.  "Wisconsin Reels After Police Shooting And Second Night of Protests."
 The New York Times.  24 August 2020. Claim:  Memo from a McDonald's director advocates making a policy of omitting items from customers' drive-through orders.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2009] Scanned image attached purporting to be a genuine internal McDonalds management letter. The letter is pretty disturbing on a number of fronts. Obviously the idea of deliberately cheating customers is questionable but further to that the revenue figure is wildly incorrect because the only "saving" would be in some ingredients which are a very small percentage of the overall cost of the end product. Lastly, of course people will stop coming to the store if they are often short changed. Is McDonalds really the evil empire?    Origins:  This scenario has played out in many a home: It's the end of a long day, everyone's tired and hungry, but nobody has the energy or inclination to cook, or even to go out to a restaurant and sit through a dine-in meal.  Instead, a family member is tapped to head out to the drive-through lane of a local fast food outlet to pick up some chow for everyone.  Unfortunately, upon the designated food retriever's return, the famished family members discover that a careless restaurant employee inadvertently failed to include one or more of the requested items when packaging the order  thereby necessitating that somebody go hungry, share his food, or make another trek to the fast food outlet. (In our household such an occurrence  was known as "Ericing an order," so named in honor of my younger brother, who rarely managed to return from a fast food run with a complete order.) The "missing drive-through food items" phenomenon is such a seemingly common one that it has prompted some consumers to occasionally wonder if fast food restaurants don't do it on purpose in order to increase their profit margins  because those restaurants know from experience that many drive-through customers won't discover until they're well away from the point of sale that they didn't receive some of the food they paid for, and by that point they don't have the time, or consider it too much of a hassle, to return to retrieve the missing items.   The image reproduced above plays on those feelings in the form of a purported memo from Robert Trugabe, a Managing Director with McDonald's Australia, which (ironically)  suggests the company increase revenues by making an undocumented practice of regularly and deliberately leaving out food items from every few drive-through orders: We need to discuss the drive through orders as well. If the girls leave one item out of every second or third order, this adds up to several thousand dollars per week revenue. On smaller orders if they leave out the hot apple pie or fires [sic] and larger orders just 1 burger from every third order this totals around $2,118.00 per day. We need to work out if there is a way of making this a procedure without making it documented. (Lest any viewers miss the point, the preceding paragraph is helpfully encircled with a bold black line and accompanied by the written expression "I KNEW IT!!" in the sample image.)  The "McMemo" was merely a parodical prank, however.  An inquiry about it to McDonald's Australia drew the following response: This memo is a complete fabrication. 'Robert Trugabe' is not a McDonald's Australia employee and never has been. Needless to say the contents of the letter are also completely fabricated. McDonald's practices the highest standards of consumer ethics and would never encourage employees to act in a way that undermines our core customer values. Moreover, the McDonald's Australia web site now carries an alert offering a "customer update on fabricated letter": alert The memo in circulation online and via email supposedly written by the Managing Director/Proprietor of Frewville McDonald's in South Australia is a complete fabrication. 'Robert Trugabe' is not, and never has been, a McDonald's Australia employee. The contents of the letter are also completely fabricated. McDonald's practices the highest standards of consumer ethics and would never encourage employees to act in a way that undermines our core customer values. Additionally, the organizational listing on the McDonald's Australia web site included only one Managing Director, whose name was Catriona Noble, not Robert Trugabe.   organizational listing In case the joke isn't obvious, we note the uncoincidental similarity between the name of the supposed McDonald's official and that of Robert Mugabe, the controversial president of Zimbabwe, as well as the remarkable congruence of their signatures: Robert Mugabe  The originator of the hoax memo was identified as South Australian prankster David Thorne, who said the effort of creating it "took me five minutes in Photoshop."  David Thorne Last updated:  13 July 2014 American and European leaders find themselves scrambling to respond to Russias deployment of troops in the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine. With military action on no ones wish-list, diplomacy and economic sanctions are the only moves effectively in play. Secretary of State John Kerry said on CBSFace the Nationthat he had been on the phone with his counterparts among the G-8 nations. Every single one of them are prepared to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia with respect to this invasion, Kerry said. Theyre prepared to put sanctions in place, theyre prepared to isolate Russia economically, the ruble is already going down. Russia has major economic challenges. This fact-check zeros in on the value of the Russian ruble. It has declined but partly because thats what the Russians wanted. A big drop In the early part of 2013, the ruble was worth 3.3 U.S. cents. Today, its value has tumbled by 15 percent, to 2.8 cents. A little less than half of that fall came in January as the situation in Ukraine deteriorated. Heres the picture over the past year, taken from the currency exchange serviceXE.com:   There is no question that the violence and political turmoil in Ukraine took a toll on the ruble. Russian banks have about $28 billion in loans in the country. Before the Russian troops moved in, investors were already worried. Last week,two of the largest banks in Russiasaid they would suspend any new lending in Ukraine. But the rubles decline has deeper roots. In 2010, the Russian Central Bank announced it wanted to get out of the business of setting the rubles value on the international market. It had in mind a gradual glide path for the currencys fall, andin October, it gave the ruble even more leewayto drop further. The countrys economy grew less than 2 percent last year, and it has struggled to keep inflation in check. The ruble got pretty over-valued in the big energy boom from 2001-08, said Mark Adomanis, a management consultant and contributor to Forbes. That hurt Russian manufacturing and letting the ruble fall potentially could help. With a weaker ruble Russian goods become more competitive on international markets, Adomanis said. That said, a free fall is not what the Russian Central Bank has in mind. In January,the bank signaled that it would stepin to prop up the ruble. But the overall policy remains the same. Our ruling Kerry said the ruble is going down, and it is. The Russian currency has lost about 15 percent of its value against the dollar since early 2013. It is not all because of the situation in Ukraine, however, a fact that viewers may not have picked up on by hearing Kerry's statement. The currencys decline is also part of Russian policy to reduce inflation and make domestic manufacturers more competitive. Theres a little more going on here than Kerrys statement would suggest. We rate his claim Mostly True. July 2016 saw a week of high-profile shootings involving police the United States: On 5 July 2016, Alton Sterling was shot and killed by police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; the following day, Philando Castile was shot and killed by police during a traffic stop in Minnesota; and the day after that a sniper shot and killed five police officers during a Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas.  Alton Sterling Philando Castile police officers On 8 July 2016, the streaming music service Pandora posted a message on social media expressing a feeling of pain and a gesture of support related to those events: posted  Although Pandora's post stated that their "hearts ache for all of those who unfairly lost their lives" and included the hashtag #LoveAboveAll, their use of the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag to represent the victims of police shootings but not an equivalent hashtag to represent the policemen killed in Dallas (such as  #BlueLivesMatter) generated controversy along with calls for boycotts of the music service.  That reaction then prompted social media calls for people to subscribe to Pandora as a gesture of support: @pandora_radio and I'm deleting now @pandora_radio  Big_Blue_Nate123 (@BlueNate123) July 9, 2016 July 9, 2016 @pandora_radio took a stand, and ppl are pissed....let's support and subscribe! #LoveAboveAll #BlackLivesMatter https://t.co/McvsxAgoAd @pandora_radio #LoveAboveAll #BlackLivesMatter https://t.co/McvsxAgoAd  Olivia X (@EsSeNCeofaDiVa) July 11, 2016 July 11, 2016 Social media messages expressing anger over Pandora's message often asserted that the Black Lives Matter movement is anti-police, or that the movement was responsible for the shooting of police in Dallas. Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza attempted to dispel these rumors during an appearance on All in with Chris Hayes: attempted Black Lives Matter has never, ever called for the murder of police officers, Garza told Hayes. What we have said over and over again is that it is time in this country for policing to be accountable, transparent and responsible. Thats not rhetoric. That is what communities in the United States want to see from the people who protect and serve them. And so quite frankly, we can, at the same time as we grieve the loss of life of several officers who were killed last night, we can also push to demand that there be accountable, responsive, transparent policing that has oversight form communities and that is accountable to the communities they are supposed to protect and serve. Garza added that Black Lives Matter isnt concerned with inciting more violence  in fact, the movement condemns it  but with tearing down the assumption that black people are criminals. We are not anti-police, she declared. We are anti our people being murdered in the streets. What happened to Alton Sterling, what happened to Philando, what happens to so many black people in our communities is absolutely unacceptable, and I think thats something that we can all agree on. Ironically, those upset over Pandora's message announced that they would be boycotting the streaming music service on Facebook, even though Facebook openly expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement by erecting a Black Lives Matter sign outside their headquarters in Menlo Park, California: support This email from the dawn of the millennium made its way to our inbox in 2003: This rather shocking photo was snapped in November 16th by a spectator at the collegiate power lifting championships at Pennsylvania State. The unfortunate competitor, who expressed a plea to remain anonymous, remembered to surgeons that he was "stuck" at the bottom of a personal best attempt in the squat lift when he "sort of pulled his stomach in and pushed extra hard, at the same time as trying to complete the lift." He remembers a loud popping, splattering noise then a fierce stabbing pain and then not being able to move from the squat position. He remained in this position for about half an hour, since trying to stand caused him overwhelming agonizing pain.  Paramedics arrived and applied anaesthesia on the spot and carried him to an ambulance. He was rushed to surgery, where surgeons described the trauma as an "explosive and aggravated prolapse of the bowel". Meanwhile it was revealed that the weight was removed from his shoulders at the time of the incident by two "spotters" on either side of the lifter. The third spotter who was standing behind the lifter was unfortunately sprayed with fecal matter at the time of the incident. This spotter promptly fainted when he realized the extent of the injury to the lifter, who was a personal friend. This compounded the task of first aid officers who were at a loss as to how to treat the injury to the lifter in any case, who remained in the squatting position moaning in pain much to the consternation of the helpless audience. The hapless lifter had successful surgery to relieve the prolapse, but remained immobilized with his feet elevated in stirrups for 2 weeks to ensure "internal compliance with the surgery and that the organs retracted successfully". To add insult to injury, the ex-lifter required rectal stitching to partially occlude the anal orifice and stitch the rectal passage (which had significantly expanded and torn during the prolapse) and also was put on a low fibre low residue diet to combat flatulence to avoid any possibility of a recurrence. CBS news spoke to his wife and asked if she thought he would resume his power lifting career. "Not if I have anything to say about it, would you like to risk something like that again?" We agreed!!  CBS news        This item is "false" in the sense that the accompanying text does not correspond to the image:  The message reproduced above was not written or published by CBS news or any other news agency. (The poor writing, non-news format, and focus on "gross out" details mark it as a fabrication.)  The annual USAPL Pennsylvania State Powerlifting Championship contests are held early in the year (February or March), not in November. contests  No such injury as the one described occurred to any weightlifter at the Pennsylvania State Powerlifting Championships in the last several years.  The "weightlifter" in the photograph is posed squatting immediately in front of a doorway or wall, which would not be the case if had suffered an injury in the midst of a powerlifting match and then found himself "not able to move from the squat position."  (He'd be in the middle of an arena or gymnasium floor with plenty of room on all sides.) Although a prolapsed rectum or bowel is a real medical condition, the text cited here is an obvious attempt at a "gross out" piece involving all the familiar aspects of potty humor (e.g., rectums, sprayed fecal matter, farts).  How and why the image accompanying the text was produced (and by whom) is still unknown to us. prolapsed rectum Canadian Press.  "Is It a Cactus or a Rude Gesture?" On 13 October 2016, the web site RedStateWatcher reported that e-mail published by WikiLeaks revealed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had been assassinated by Hillary Clinton operatives: reported Antonin Scalia For Trump's sake, please share this to get the word out. The corruption is immense! We need Trump elected to save our country! According to new WikiLeaks emails, three days before Justice Scalia died this email was sent, using the term "wetworks"  exclusively used in Military meaning "assassination".   The item referenced a leaked e-mail sent on 9 February 2016, four days before Justice Scalia was found dead in his room at a Texas ranch. E-mail in that chain was presented in reverse chronological order (with the most recent reply first)  sender John Podesta initiated the chain at 4:36 PM, and recipient Steve Elmendorf responded at 8:56 PM: e-mail Steve Elmendorf From: John Podesta [mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 4:36 PM To: Steve Elmendorf <elmendorf@teamsubjectmatter.com>Subject: Thanks Didn't think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard. From:elmendorf@teamsubjectmatter.comTo: john.podesta@gmail.comDate: 2016-02-09 20:56Subject: RE: Thanks I am all in Sounds like it will be a bad nite , we all need to buckle up and double down Based on Wikipedia's definition of the term, RedStateWatcher claimed that the "wet works" phrase used in the otherwise vague e-mail was incontrovertible proof it referenced a literal assassination: definition  Claims that Scalia was  assassinated were not novel, as within a day of his death conspiracy theories about the manner in which he died swept social media. And the newly-leaked document was contemporaneous to Scalia's sudden passing, heightening concern about the use of the term "wet work" (or "wetwork"). assassinated However, dictionaries present a broader picture of the term and its applied uses: uses  In fact, the term had then-recently been used euphemistically, to describe Chelsea Clinton's campaign trail attacks on her mother's Democratic primary opponent, Bernie Sanders: euphemistically Conservative websites gleefully denounced Chelsea the attack dog. Democrats, meanwhile, wrung their hands over why she of all people would be dispatched to do this kind of wet work. (As strategist Brad Bannon told The Hill, This makes Chelsea just another political player in the arena, and if I was Chelsea, thats not where Id want to be.) And a media bored to sobs with the Democratic primary leapt on the episode like ducks on a June bug. Commentators mused endlessly about why the Clinton camp had taken this route and what it meant. (Consensus: nothing good.) Bernie Sanders was repeatedly invited to respond. Bloombergs Mark Halperin might have sounded a smidge melodramatic when he asserted, I have covered the Clintons since 1991. It takes a lot to surprise me, and I am stunned watching Chelsea Clinton go on the attack. Stunned. Never seen anything like it. In media coverage, "wet work[s]" was being used to describe deliberately obtained unflattering coverage of an opponent. And on the same day that the e-mails supposedly describing an assassination plot were sent, Alex Seitz-Wald penned an article for MSNBC that described Bernie Sanders as a regular attendee of luxurious fundraisers, particularly in Martha's Vineyard. The piece also reported both Bill and Hillary Clinton as performing the same sort of "wet work" as Chelsea Clinton: article The Sanders campaign is all about smashing the alleged stranglehold corporate power has on politics, and the candidate himself frequently touts that his insurgent run is funded by small donations, not wealthy people or outside groups. Its been an effective message, and one pro-Clinton forces have tried to muddy by calling attention to Sanders ties to the DSCC [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee], which is financed in large part by industry PACs. The DSCC used its financial and political power to bolster Sanders and urge Democrats not to challenge him in his 2006 Senate bid, and spent close to $200,000 through various means to aid his election. Bill Clinton said this week that he practically fell out of my chair when he read reports that Sanders had attended the DSCCs summer donor retreats on Marthas Vineyard, and Hillary Clinton said Sanders took Wall Street cash not directly, but through the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The Sanders campaign fired back by calling the charge disturbing, dishonest and beyond preposterous, noting the DSCC also receives small donations and is hardly exclusively funded by Wall Street. Although MSNBC published the piece on 9 February 2016, the topic of Sanders' DSCC retreats was the  subject of e-mails dated 6 and 7 February 2016. In that chain, campaign associates looked to have discovered a photograph of Sanders at such a retreat and brainstormed ways in which to get a member of the press to cover his attendance at a February 2016 DSCC fundraiser (the e-mail appeared to have an appended image of Sanders titled IMG_0692.JPG). subject e-mails Rearranged in chronological order, the chain demonstrated Hillary Clinton's staffers planning how best to attack her opponent with retreat image and information about the lavish fundraisers: On Feb 6, 2016 9:47 PM, "Tina Flournoy" <Tina@presidentclinton.com> wrote:Bernie at the DSCC retreatOn Saturday, February 6, 2016, Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:OmgOn Feb 6, 2016 9:58 PM, "John Podesta" <john.podesta@gmail.com wrote> wrote:Can we tweet?On Feb 6, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:I think we shd give to NY postFrom:Tina@presidentclinton.comTo: bfallon@hillaryclinton.comDate: 2016-02-07 01:09 Subject:Re: IMG_0692.JPGDSCC event in edgartown last July. Getting exact dateOn Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Tina Flournoy <Tina@presidentclinton.com> wrote:Will send briefing for the event with attendeesFrom:bfallon@hillaryclinton.comTo: Tina@presidentclinton.comDate: 2016-02-07 16:18Subject: Re: IMG_0692.JPGThank you. We are on this Tina Flournoy stated Sanders attended a DSCC event in July 2015, and on the date of the "wet work" e-mail (to which Podesta was also party) Seitz-Wald wrote: During his 10 years on the Senate, Bernie Sanders has been a regular presence at luxurious Democratic fundraising retreats, according to more than a half-dozen lobbyists, donors and former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee staff members with whom he attended the events. Sanders most recently appeared at one last July, shortly after he announced his presidential run. Sanders connection to the DSCC has become a issue in his heated primary contest with front-runner Hillary Clinton, who has struggled to explain her close ties to Wall Street and the large speaking fees shes been paid by Goldman Sachs and other banks. Sanders has made Clintons relationships with the financial industry a key point of contrast on the campaign trail. On 13 February 2016, Clinton campaign operatives e-mailed about continuing to use the fundraisers as a smear: e-mailed We have gamed out this hit and don't think it works on debate stage (see Milwaukee debate as example). But hit him all the time on being at DSCC retreats on Martha's Vineyard with lobbyists every year. Finding that it harder for him. Rearranged into the context of Antonin Scalia's death, the use of the term "wet work" was presumed by many to mean literal assassination. But e-mails between staffers just prior to the 9 February 2016 document revealed planning for a coordinated effort to plant a negative story about Sanders in the press in the days prior to the 9 February 2016 e-mail and article. On the date Podesta discussed "wet work" with Elmendorf, MSNBC published the coverage sought by Clinton's staffers on 6 and 7 February 2016. As such, the most likely victim of the "wet work" was not Scalia, but Sanders.  Cottle, Michelle.  "Chelsea Clinton Grows Up."
  The Atlantic.  19 January 2016. Seitz-Wald, Alex.  "Bernie Sanders a Regular at High-Dollar Donor Retreats."
  MSNBC.  9 February 2016. [green-label]Claim:[/green-label] President Obama has issued an executive ordergranting a $2,350 dollar tax rebateto every American who filed a tax return for 2014. [dot-false][/dot-false] [green-label]Example:[/green-label] [green-small][Collected via e-mail,November2015][/green-small] Some women at work were discussing the following: Apparently they saw on Facebook that, as an executive order by PresidentObama, the government is giving everyone who filed 2014 taxes a $2,350.00rebate/refund to be mailed out this month (November 12, 2015). I have lookedeverywhere (on the Internet) that I can think of. The only place I can findit is on a site called "United Media Publishing". Also, the only referenceto this that I can find on Facebook sends a person to this same article fromUnited Media Publishing. Is this true??? [green-label]Origins:[/green-label] On 14 August 2015 the web site United Media Publishing (UMP) issued an article titled "Obama Orders 2350 Dollar Tax Rebate In November" which reported that: The Obama administration has directed IRS director John Koskinen to have the agency prepare for one of the largest cash refund/rebate hand-outs in the history of the organization. The President has authorized by way of anexecutive order that a 2350 dollar tax rebate be issued to every American who filed a tax return in the 2014 fiscal year, irrespective of whether they paid tax or not. Update: A representative for the IRS confirms that the first tax rebate checks will go into the mail November 12th. WhileUnited Media Publishing's initial claim didn't attract much attention on social media, the highlighted portion in the above-reproduced excerpt breathed new life into the hoaxin early November 2015. Unfortunately for readers (hopeful that anunexpected $2,350 windfall was headed their way atChristmastime),United Media Publishing is nothing more than a fake news site, one that doesn't feature a disclaimer notice identifying its content as fake news. Prior fabricationsspread by UMP included aCharles Mansondeath hoax and a story aboutthousands of Christian couples filing for divorceinprotest of the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage. Charles Manson divorce  [article-meta] [green-label]Last updated:[/green-label] 11 November 2015 [green-label]Originally published:[/green-label] 11 November 2015 In April 2016, a meme was published by the Facebook page "The Other 98%" (among others) holding that 643,000 Americans declare bankruptcy over medical bills every year, while in a number of other first-world countries, bankruptcies over medical bills are non-existent (due to the implementation of national social health insurance/medical care systems in those other countries):   At the fine print at the bottom of the meme was a citation: "Source: NerdWallet Health Analysis." No link to the specific analysis referenced was provided, but presumably the item in question was a 19 July 2013 item published by NerdWallet pertaining to medical bankruptcies. However, in that analysis NerdWallet repeatedly stated that their findings were "estimates" or "extrapolations," and some of their data were quite old even back in 2013. The primary portion of that article held that: In 2013 over 20% of American adults are struggling to pay their medical bills, and three in five bankruptcies will be due to medical bills. While we are quick to blame debt on poor savings and bad spending habits, our study emphasizes the burden of health costs causing widespread indebtedness. Medical bills can completely overwhelm a family when illness strikes, says Christina LaMontagne, VP of Health at NerdWallet. Furthermore, 25 million people hesitate to take their medications in order to control their medical costs. Unfortunately this can lead to even worse financial outcomes as preventative treatments are not rendered and patients end up using expensive ambulance and ER care as their health worsens. Finally, many question whether President Obamas universal health insurance mandate will protect Americans from problems with medical bills. Insurance is no silver bullet, says LaMontagne. Even with insurance coverage, we expect 10 million Americans will face bills they are unable to pay. Although the "643,000" figure didn't expressly appear in that article, if we take the number of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. in 2013 (1,032,236) and apply NerdWallet's statement that "three in five (60%) bankruptcies will be due to medical bills," then we arrive at a number of medical bill-related bankruptcies (619,342) reasonably close to the 643,000 figure (although technically a bankruptcy filing can represent more than one person). bankruptcy Likewise, a 2013 CNBC item based on the 2013 NerdWallet Health Analysis included a chart showing the estimated total number of medical-related bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2013 to be 646,812, which is also quite close to the cited 643,000 figure: item  Since the number of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. is a matter of public record, the accuracy of this figure hinges on how reliable is the estimate that 60% of those filings are medical-related. In NerdWallet's "Methodology & Sources" section, the site said their medical bankruptcy estimates were based on a 2009 Harvard study, which in turn used bankruptcy data from 2007 and involved interviewing a random national sample of a bankruptcy filers: BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened. METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as medical based on debtors stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts. RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical. NerdWallet themselves reported that they employed a more conservative estimate than the Harvard study figure regarding the proportion of bankruptcies that are medical-related: We relied on a widely cited Harvard study published in 2009. NerdWallet Health chose to include only bankruptcy explicitly tied to medical bills, excluding indirect reasons like lost work opportunities. Thus we conservatively estimated medical bankruptcy rates to be 57.1% (versus the authors 62.1%) of US bankruptcies. We also used official bankruptcy statistics, released this month through March 2013, from US Courts. Still, quantifying the occurrence of medical bankruptcies can be problematic, as noted in aJanuary 2016 New York Times article on the subject: article Research on medical bankruptcies has been controversial because it can be hard to untangle how medical bills fit into a familys overall pattern of financial troubles. Twenty-nine percent of the people with medical bill problems said a family member had been forced to stop working or cut back on hours. (On the other side, about 41 percent of people said theyd taken on extra work to help pay bills.) Is that a job problem or a medical bill problem? said David Himmelstein, a professor of public health at the City University of New Yorks Hunter College School of Public Health who has studied medical bankruptcies. Its both of those things. However, that article also factored in a large development that occurred after NerdWallet's 2013 analysis: the activation of major provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as PPACA, ACA, or Obamacare): The [ACA] has led to a decline in the number of Americans suffering financial stress from health problems, thanks to the new options for receiving coverage, especially for the poor. But the problem is still widespread, touching roughly a quarter of Americans under 65, when the insured and uninsured are looked at together. Americans older than 65 are covered by Medicare, which more frequently protects people from major financial trouble. Unlike other polls, which have focused on the ways that insurance affects health care, the new Times-Kaiser survey explored the effects of medical bills on peoples daily lives well beyond the medical system. We found that medical bills dont just keep people from filling prescriptions and scheduling doctors visits. They can also prompt deep financial and personal sacrifices, affecting their housing, employment, credit and daily lives. The potentially ameliorating effect of the ACA on bankruptcies was also cited by a July 2015 Wall Street Journal article which (in part) described research into medical bankruptcy done by Northeastern University law professor Daniel Austin: article So what does Prof. Austin think will happen with mandatory health care in all 50 states? Could the system designed to give people access to affordable health insurance make families more financially stable and keep them out of bankruptcy? It absolutely should show a reduction in bankruptcies [filed] due to medical debt, Prof. Austin said in an interview. Plenty of studies have pinpointed medical debt as the No. 1 reason why people turn to bankruptcy for a fresh start. In rallying for health-care reform in his 2009 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said that 62.1% of consumer bankruptcies are medical bankruptcies, citing a study Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) co-wrote as a Harvard law professor. Prof. Austins study found the percentage of medical bankruptcies to be far smaller. Overall, 18% to 25% of personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. were prompted by medical debt.  But even prior to the implementation of the ACA, some sources questioned the true impact of medical debt on bankruptcy rates. A 2012 piece published by The Hill compared rates of bankruptcy between the United States and Canada (the latter a country with single-payer healthcare system): compared It's difficult to conclude that bankrupt folks are awash in healthcare debt when nearly 90 percent of their obligations are unrelated to health care ... Will ObamaCare's increased regulation of the healthcare marketplace help put an end to the phenomenon? Data from countries with government-run healthcare systems suggest not. Consider Canada. Our neighbor to the north features a government-run, single-payer healthcare system where private insurance is outlawed for procedures covered under the law. So you'd think that Canada would have a lower rate of bankruptcy than the United States, what with one big potential cause of bankruptcy  the cost of health care  absorbed by the government. But according to researchers at the Fraser Institute, a nonpartisan Canadian think tank, bankruptcy rates are statistically the same on both sides of the 49th parallel. In both the United States and Canada, less than one-third of 1 percent of families file for bankruptcy each year. Further, even with a socialized healthcare system, some Canadians go bankrupt because of medical expenses. Approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors  those 55 and older  cited medical reasons, including uninsured expenses, as the main culprit for their insolvency. Canada wasn't the only country in which the presence of single-payer healthcare reportedly wasn't a total shield against bankruptcies (medical-related or otherwise). A 2010 World Health Organization (WHO) paper [PDF] found that: PDF Outside of the US, research on links between over-indebtedness and health has been quite limited to date, consisting largely of rankings of factors in consumer debt. For instance, within the United Kingdom, sickness or disability accounted for 5% of households in financial difficulties in 2002. A ranking of causes of over-indebtedness and private bankruptcy in Germany found that psychological problems and own sickness, if added together, would rank in fourth place of reasons for over-indebtedness and private bankruptcy. There have been a number of interesting recent studies in Germany on the subject. These have found a high risk of mental disorders among those facing the threat of over-indebtedness as well as the association of over-indebtedness with an increased prevalence of overweight and obesity apart from traditional socioeconomic factors. Additionally, there is evidence that over-indebted persons refrain from seeking medical treatment or purchasing prescriptions even under Germanys health system. One-third of participants in a study of insolvency counseling services in RhinelandPalatinate indicated that their financial difficulties were a result of accident, illness or addiction. In short, using some very specific analyses, one could make the case that (at least within the last several years) about 643,000 Americans declared bankruptcy annually due to medical bills. But the accuracy of those analyses is open to question, the playing field has changed significantly since they were undertaken (due to the implementation of the ACA), and it's far from an absolute that the other countries listed in the meme experience zero medical-related bankruptcies.  Emami, Sarah.  "Consumer Over-Indebtedness and Health Care Costs:
How to Approach the Question from a Global Perspective."
  World Health Report (2010) Background Paper, 3.  2010. Himmelstein, David U. et. al.  "Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study."
  American Journal of Medicine.  12 April 2009. Lamontagne, Christina.  "NerdWallet Health Finds Medical Bankruptcy Accounts for Majority of Personal Bankruptcies."
  NerdWallet.  19 June 2013. Lamontagne, Christina.  "NerdWallet Health Finds Medical Bankruptcy Accounts for Majority of Personal Bankruptcies."
  NerdWallet.  26 March 2014. Luthra, Shefali.  "Consumers Still Struggling with Medical Debt."
  USA Today.  1 February 2015. Mangan, Dan.  "Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study."
  CNBC.  25 June 2013. Pipes, Sally C.  "Medical Bankruptcy: Fact or Fiction?"
  The Hill.  23 October 2012. Sanger-Katz, Margot.  "Even Insured Can Face Crushing Medical Debt, Study Finds."
  Thne New York Times.  5 January 2016. Stech, Katy.  "The Future of Personal Bankruptcy in a Post-Obamacare World."
  The Wall Street Journal.  1 July 2015. Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.  "Growing Old Gracefully, An Investigation Into the Growing Number of Bankrupt Canadians Over Age 55."
  31 March 2006. On 9 May 2017, Facebook page "The Church of PUNK" shared an article reporting that a KGB agent admitted the band the Sex Pistols were an operation backed by the former Soviet Union to destabilize Western democracy: shared article   The April 2015 article reported that at the time it was published, a former KGB agent had just disclosed the punk rock plot: article Alexandrei Varennikovic Voloshin, a retired KGB agent, has admitted this week on National Russian Television (NTV) that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was behind the creation of the 1970s punk scene and financed major punk bands such as the Sex Pistols, the Clash and the Ramones. The USSR government at the time spent hundreds of millions of rubles on this covert operation destined to create utter chaos and pervert the Western youth to nihilist, anti-establishment and anti-american ideologies he explained in an hour long interview broadcast on national television. There is no truth to this story; World News Daily Report states on its own disclaimer page that all of the content on the site is fictional: no truth disclaimer WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website  even those based on real people  are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle. In January2015, links began circulating on Facebook promisingusers free lifetime passes to popular fast food outlets such as KFC, McDonald's, Wendy's, Starbucks, Subway, and Burger King, typically presented as promotions offeredin celebration of the brands' purported anniversaries: The embedded links led to severalURLs, and users who clicked through on them to claim the promised lifetime passes were routed to a pages that clonedthe style of Facebook-based content (but werehostedoff Facebook):    As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users.A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media: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.When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information.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.A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media: article 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. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. 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. A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. Starbucks