Should a democratic government be for sale to the best fund-raiser?

• Watergate Fallout: Scandal in the 1970s ignited demands to ban private donations and protect democracy from secret money and corruption.

• Bold Proposals Stall: Reformers in Congress pushed to replace private cash with public fundsbut legal hurdles and partisan divides blocked sweeping change.

• Legacy Endures: Though efforts failed, the fight shaped debates still raging today over big moneys grip on U.S. elections.

Money pours into political campaigns today millions of dollars from individual supporters, giant corporations and anonymous donors who back PACs and other private funding efforts.

The Trump campaign raised at least $1.45 billion while the Biden campaign raised about $997 million. After Biden dropped out, the Kamala Harris campaign raised more than $1 billion in just three months.

The net effect is that the American government appears to be and in many ways isfor sale. While money alone can't guarantee campaign wins, a large campaign fund can outweighjust about everything but incumbency in shaping the outcome of an election and, therefore, public policies.

Those who weren't around to see it may not realize that nearly half a century ago, lawmakers and activists fought fiercely to eliminate private financing of elections altogether. During the 1970s and 1980s, a significant wave of reformers believed that only a fully public system could protect democracy from the corrosive influence of big donors and special interests.

John W. Gardner, a Republican who served in Democrat Lyndon Johnson's administration, was the founder in 1970 of Common Cause, a "people's lobby" that pushed strongly for public funding. It still exists but has shifted its priorities other issues.

Gardner and other public funding advocates failed buttheir proposals laid the groundwork for debates that still rage today.

Watergate sparks a reform movement

The modern push to end private funding of campaigns gained momentum after the Watergate scandal, which exposed how President Richard Nixons reelection committee had secretly raised millions from corporate executives, lobbyists, and wealthy individuals. Revelations about secret slush funds and illegal contributions shocked the public and drove Congress to enact the landmark Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) amendments of 1974.

The FECA reforms imposed new limits on contributions and spending and created the system of public financing for presidential campaigns. But many reformers saw those measures as only partial fixes. They argued that as long as private money remained in the system, politicians would still be beholden to deep-pocketed interests.

Proposals for full public funding

In the years following Watergate, several bills were introduced in Congress aiming to replace private contributions entirely with public funds. One of the most prominent was sponsored by Sen. William Proxmire (D-WI) and Rep. John B. Anderson (R-IL) in the late 1970s. Their legislation would have banned all private donations for federal campaigns and instead allocated taxpayer money to candidates who met qualifying thresholds.

Supporters claimed the system would level the playing field and reduce the appearance or reality of corruption. The only way to restore public confidence in government is to sever the link between money and political favors, Proxmire said on the Senate floor in 1977.

But critics argued that forcing taxpayers to fund politicians they might oppose infringed on individual rights. Some worried that a public funding system could favor incumbents or create cumbersome government oversight over political speech.

Court decisions,political roadblocks

Adding to the challenges, the Supreme Courts 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo complicated reformers plans. The Court upheld contribution limits but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of protected free speech. This legal precedent made it harder for Congress to impose strict bans on political spending or to mandate an exclusive system of public funding.

In the 1980s, attempts to revive comprehensive public financing proposals repeatedly stalled. President Ronald Reagan and many congressional Republicans opposed new federal spending on campaigns and saw public funding as an unnecessary expansion of government. Even some Democrats were reluctant to abandon private donations, particularly as television advertising costs soared.

The powerful broadcasting lobby fiercely resisted public funding and also opposed widening restrictions on television advertising, a major source of funding for local broadcasters during election years.

Lingering influence

Despite repeated defeats, the efforts of the 1970s and 1980s helped shape public awareness about the influence of money in politics. Many proposals from that era such as matching funds, spending caps, and transparency requirements remain features of todays debates over campaign finance reform.

Recent Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and the rise of super PACs have only reignited concerns that private money dominates American elections. Reform advocates frequently cite the earlier push for a fully publicly funded system as an example of what might have beenand perhaps still could be.

History shows weve been grappling with this problem for decades, said Meredith McGehee, a longtime campaign finance reform advocate. The question remains: can we ever fully remove the influence of big money from our democracy?

While the dream of eliminating private funding entirely remains unrealized, the fervor of the 1970s and 1980s efforts endures as a reminder that the battle over money and politics is far from newand far from over.

It imposes sharfp cuts to healcare and social welfare programs while extending tax cuts

• Extends Trump-era tax cuts permanently while imposing cuts to healthcare and aid programs.

• Delivers new tax breaks for parents, seniors, workers, and car buyersbut with caveats.

• Tightens rules for programs like Medicaid and SNAP, raising potential costs for states and individuals.

A nearly 900-page Republican tax bill is headed for President Bidens desk after passing the House, cementing one of the biggest overhauls of the U.S. tax code in years. The legislation makes permanent the individual tax cuts originally enacted under President Trump in 2017, while introducing new tax breaks and significant changes to federal spending on healthcare, food assistance, and student aid programs.

Consumer advocates denounced the measure. This is certainly one of the cruelest bills in American history, backtracking on the countrys painfully slow history of expanding health care coverage and, equally remarkably, taking food away from the hungry," said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen.

"The bill will strip health coverage from 17 million Americans and put food assistance at risk for upwards of 5 million Americans."

ButDepartment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner said the measure "will revitalize and uplift rural, tribal, and urban communities across America, delivering the largest deficit reduction in decades, providing the biggest tax cut ever for working-class Americans, and expanding the benefits of Opportunity Zones so this transformative policy can have an even greater impact.

"The One Big Beautiful Bill is a massive victory for the American worker, the American small business owner, and the American family, and its just the beginning of Americas Golden Age.

Slashing vital programs that protect civil rights, consumer protections, health care, and education for working families to benefit the rich and powerful is wrong, saidRichard Dubois, executive director of the National Consumer Law Center. The massive cuts to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau buried in the bill further empower large corporations over people.

Stricter Rules for Medicaid and SNAP

The legislation imposes work requirements for Medicaid enrollees, mandating 80 hours of work per month for many able-bodied adults starting in late 2026. States that expanded Medicaid would also have to charge modest fees for some services for enrollees with slightly higher incomes.

Recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits will face stricter work rules as well. The age threshold for mandatory work requirements rises to 65, and states will be expected to contribute more to SNAP funding starting in 2028, potentially straining state budgets.

EVCredits on the Chopping Block

Shoppers considering an electric vehicle (EV) purchase may feel the squeeze. The bill ends tax credits for new and used EVs after Sept. 30, and eliminates credits for home charging stations after June 2026. However, buyers of U.S.-made cars could deduct up to $10,000 in auto loan interest through 2028, with income limits applying.

Bigger Deductions in High-Tax States

For residents in high-tax states, the bill offers some relief by raising the maximum state-and-local-tax (SALT) deduction to $40,000, up from the current $10,000 cap. This higher cap would grow by 1% annually through 2029 before reverting to $10,000 in 2030. However, the benefit phases down for households earning more than $500,000, limiting the boost for wealthier taxpayers.

New Perks, New Limits for Parents

Families stand to gain from an increase in the child tax credit, which would rise from $2,000 to $2,200 starting in 2026 and be permanently indexed to inflation. The legislation also establishes Trump Accounts for children born between 2025 and 2028, seeding each account with a $1,000 government contribution. Families could contribute up to $5,000 annually, with funds accessible in adulthood.

At the same time, the bill tightens borrowing rules for parents with college-age children. Parent Plus loans would face new caps$65,000 total and $20,000 per yearand would be excluded from income-driven repayment plans after mid-2026.

Seniors and Workers

Americans over 65 would gain a new tax deduction of up to $6,000 for individuals (or $12,000 for couples) between 2025 and 2028, available to those earning $75,000 or less. The benefit tapers off for higher incomes.

Workers could also benefit from temporary deductions. Those earning tips may deduct up to $25,000 in tip income from their federal taxable income, while people working overtime could deduct up to $12,500or $25,000 for married couplesfrom 2025 to 2028, provided they earn less than $150,000.

New Loan Restrictions for Students

For students, the bill spells tighter lending limits. The popular Grad Plus program allowing graduate students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance will end in 2026. Instead, graduate students will face annual borrowing caps of $20,500, while professional students in fields like medicine or law can borrow up to $50,000 annually. Overall borrowing would also face new lifetime limits.

The bill also replaces current income-contingent repayment plans with two options: a fixed-payment plan of 10 to 25 years, or a Repayment Assistance Plan based on income but stretching to 30 years. Meanwhile, private colleges with large endowments could see higher taxes, although institutions with fewer than 3,000 students would be exempt.

While Republicans tout the bill as a pro-growth, pro-family package, critics warn it could deepen inequality and increase financial pressure on vulnerable Americans. The full fiscal impact is likely to emerge as provisions phase in over the coming years.

Researchers detected dozens of everyday chemicals in childrens bodiessome not tracked by national health surveys

• Over 90% of the 24 yearolds tested had 34 different chemicals in their urine.

• Nine of these chemicals arent tracked in national health surveys.

• Exposures came from everyday productsplastics, personal care items, flame retardants, pesticides, combustion byproducts, and more.

Chemical exposure has become a hot topic recently, and a recent study explored how toxic chemicals affect preschoolers.

Researchers from the University of California Davis Health worked with the NIHs ECHO program to understand what types of chemicals preschoolers are exposed to.

They zeroed in on a nationally diverse group of 201 children aged 2 to 4 from California, Georgia, New York, and Washington.

Our study shows that childhood exposure to potentially harmful chemicals is widespread, researcher Deborah H. Bennett said in a news release.

This is alarming because we know early childhood is a critical window for brain and body development. Many of these chemicals are known or suspected to interfere with hormones, brain development, and immune function.

The study

The study collected urine samples from 201 preschoolers and tested them for 111 different chemicals. These included:

• Phthalates and phthalate alternatives (found in plastics, toys, food packaging)

• Parabens (from cosmetics and lotions)

• Bisphenols (in plastics and can linings)

• Benzophenones (in sunscreen and plastics)

• Pesticides and organophosphate esters (OPEs used in flame retardants and packaging)

• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs from vehicle exhaust, grilling, smoke)

• Bactericides (in antibacterial soaps).
  

This is one of the first studies to test a broad suite of chemicals, including newer or understudied compounds not usually tracked at the national level.

The results

Heres a breakdown of the results:

• Wide presence: Out of the 111 chemicals, 96 appeared in at least five children and 48 were found in over half of them.

• High exposure: Thirty-four chemicals showed up in more than 90% of kids. Importantly, nine of those aren't monitored in surveys like NHANES.

• Possible harm signals: Many of these chemicals are known or suspected endocrine disruptorsmeaning they can interfere with hormonesor may affect brain and immune system development.
  

The study also highlights that toddlers arent just exposed through one sourcethey accumulate chemicals from toys, packaging, household items, personal care products, and ambient air.

Exposure to certain chemicals in early childhood such as pesticides, plasticizers, and flame retardants has been linked to developmental delays, hormone disruption and other long-term health issues, researcher Jiwon Oh said in the news release.

This new study highlights the urgent need for expanded biomonitoring and stronger regulations to protect children from harmful exposures.

What Parents Can Do

While these findings may seem daunting or overwhelming to parents, the researchers offer practical tips to reduce chemical exposure in little ones.

• Choose thoughtfully: Look for items labeled phthalate-free or paraben-free in toys and personal care products.

• Ventilate often: Reduce indoor levels of combustible byproducts by letting fresh air in during cooking or after using cleaning products.

• Stay informed: Follow updates from trusted health sources and advocate for broader tracking of chemicals in children.

The latest research may come as a surprise

• A new systematic review found that eating unprocessed red meat didnt significantly impact body weight or metabolic health.

• The study looked only at clinical trials where participants actually ate red meat, not just reported it.

• Researchers publicly shared their data making this one of the most transparent reviews of red meat and obesity to date.
  

A team at Texas Tech University recently dug into an important question: does unprocessed red meat really drive weight gain or metabolic disease?

Observational studies have often hinted at a link but they rely on people remembering what they ate, which can be unreliable.

Instead, this study took a more rigorous route. It sifted through all clinical trials where participants were actually fed unprocessed red meat and reported health outcomes like BMI, body fat percentage, cholesterol types, and triglycerides.

The bottom line? There was no notable effect on these measures.

Beef contains high-quality protein and other essential nutrients and people enjoy this key source of nourishment yet theyre often discouraged to consume red meat based on recommendations primarily driven by observational evidence, lead researcher, Nikhil V. Dhurandhar said in a news release.

Our study is the first to fully review the totality of causative evidence, which shows no protective or adverse effect of unprocessed red meat intake on obesity.

The study

Here's how the researchers made sure their findings were solid:

• Only clinical feeding trials: The review included 19 randomized controlled trials both parallel and crossover designs. They didnt review any observational studies.

• Strict criteria: Only studies that directly controlled participants' unprocessed red meat intake were included no self-reports.

• PRISMA guidelines: They followed best practices for systematic reviews, reinforcing the reliability of their methods.

• Full transparency: All their raw data, calculations, and code are publicly available via an interactive dashboard.

The results

After combing through the 19 trials, the results were surprisingly consistent:

• No impact on weight: Unprocessed red meat didnt cause significant changes in BMI or body fat.

• No negative metabolic changes: Measures like HDL (good) cholesterol, LDL (bad) cholesterol, and triglycerides didnt shift notably.

• Protein perks: Red meat is nutrient-rich and high in protein, which supports feeling full yet the stigma around it may cause people to avoid it unnecessarily.

• No link to the obesity epidemic: Interestingly, beef consumption in the U.S. has fallen while obesity rates from type 2 diabetes to heart disease have risen. That doesnt bode well for blaming red meat alone.

• Supported by beef organizations, but independently conducted: While the National Cattlemens Beef Association and Texas Beef Council funded the research, they had no role in the studys design or analysis.
  

What this means for consumers

This isnt a free pass to binge on steaks but it is a reminder to look past blanket rules. If you enjoy unprocessed red meat as part of a balanced diet, the evidence suggests its not the fat-maker it's often made out to be.

Heres why consumers can feel empowered:

• Make informed choices: If red meat fits your nutritional needs or tastes, you shouldnt feel guilty ordering it knowing it isnt inherently linked to weight gain.

• Focus on balance: Healthier cooking methods, portions, and pairing with whole grains or veggies remain key.

• Stay curious and check sources: This study is transparent, and ongoing research will help refine dietary advice further.
  

Protein-rich foods, such as beef, may improve satiety and fullness, which can help support lifestyle and dietary behaviors that promote weight loss and healthy weight maintenance, Dhurandhar added.

However, the stigma surrounding unprocessed red meats role in obesity may keep many from consuming red meat, thus missing out on benefits such as satiety, which may be important for weight loss and management. This study offers a complete view of the research, so clinicians and consumers can make informed decisions about the role of unprocessed beef in healthy lifestyles.