Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Reforming the TSA So Airport Security Isn't Impacted by Government Shutdowns
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 13, 2025:
* * *
Reforming the TSA so airport security isn't impacted by government shutdowns
Congress should remove TSA's conflict of interest as both the provider and regulator of airport security shift and shift the funding of security to a dedicated local airport user fee.
By Marc Scribner, Senior Transportation Policy Analyst
During a lapse in congressional appropriations and a partial government shutdown, most federal employees are not paid. This includes the Transportation Security Administration's
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 13, 2025:
* * *
Reforming the TSA so airport security isn't impacted by government shutdowns
Congress should remove TSA's conflict of interest as both the provider and regulator of airport security shift and shift the funding of security to a dedicated local airport user fee.
By Marc Scribner, Senior Transportation Policy Analyst
During a lapse in congressional appropriations and a partial government shutdown, most federal employees are not paid. This includes the Transportation Security Administration's(TSA's) workforce that staffs security checkpoints at airports across the country. Yet TSA's screeners have a high attrition rate in normal times, so missed paychecks will likely result in significant numbers of them calling out sick or resigning to seek other employment opportunities. Indeed, Congress was ultimately persuaded to end the last government shutdown in 2018-2019 in part because many unpaid TSA screeners stopped showing up to work, leading to long lines at airport security checkpoints and causing entire terminals to be closed at major airports in Houston and Miami.
This is simply no way to run airport security screening and underscores the need for reforming the TSA. Reason Foundation has long supported reforms to TSA's governance model to improve the provision of airport security screening in the United States. To insulate airport security screening from congressional bickering and government shutdown risk, as well as improve its efficiency and effectiveness, we propose the following three reforms: separate the provision of airport security screening from its regulation; allow airports to contract directly with private security providers; and convert the 9/11 Security Fee into a dedicated local user fee.
To that end, we have developed draft legislation, which we are calling the TSA Reform Act, to detail and help implement these reforms. This proposed legislation is contained in Appendix A of this memorandum (https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/reforming-tsa.pdf).
Separate the provision of airport security screening from its regulation
Following the enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/senate-bill/1447/text) of 2001, U.S. airport security screening was centralized under TSA. Importantly, the law tasked TSA with both providing screening services and regulating those services. This dual mandate combines the regulator with the regulated entity and represents an inherent conflict of interest.
As with airlines, railroads, and automobiles, arm's-length regulation by a government regulator and regulated entities is necessary to reduce the risks of regulatory capture. In the case of European Union member states, airport screening is the legal responsibility of airport operators. These airports either provide screening services themselves or contract with private providers.
Annex 17 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (commonly known as the Chicago Convention) contains the International Civil Aviation Organization's standards and recommended practices for aviation security. Paragraph 3.5.1(a) states that parties--including the United States, which is a founding signatory and the treaty's depositary--should ensure the "independence of those conducting oversight from those applying measures implemented under the national civil aviation security programme."
As a combined regulator and provider, TSA's current institutional design fails to align with international consensus standards.
To address TSA's core self-regulator design flaw and to align U.S. screening with global best practices, TSA should be reformed to focus strictly on the regulation of security services. Section 110(b) of ATSA replaced an earlier requirement that airport security screening be conducted "by an employee or agent of an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier" with a mandate that screening "shall be carried out by a Federal Government employee" (presently codified at 49 U.S.C. Sec. 44901(a)).
We propose that this be amended to require instead that airport security screening be conducted by "an employee or agent of an airport" who would be certified and regulated by TSA.
Allow airports to contract directly with security providers
The major exception to TSA's general security screening monopoly under ATSA Section 110(b) is the Screening Partnership Program, which allows airports to apply to seek the services of private screening companies (49 U.S.C. Sec. 44920). TSA's website lists 20 airports that are currently enrolled in the Screening Partnership Program, mostly small airports, but also includes Kansas City International, Orlando Sanford International, and San Francisco International.
Growth in the number of airports opting for private screening has stalled. Observers have identified a complicated, time-consuming, opaque, and biased process as the principal cause for the lack of interest in airport security contracting. A normal government contracting process typically involves a government agency issuing a request for proposals from qualified firms and then initiating a competitive bidding process. In the case of airport security, this would perhaps involve a sponsor airport beginning procurement from a list of security companies certified by the security regulator and then selecting the firm that best fits the airport's particular needs.
This is not how the Screening Partnership Program is designed. Instead, under current law, an airport seeking to opt in to private screening must submit a detailed request to TSA. If TSA decides to grant the airport entry into the Screening Partnership Program, it will then determine which security company it believes best fits the needs of the airport applicant. As part of this selection process, the airport has only a minor advisory role. The security company is then assigned to the airport, and the private screening company is contracted to TSA; rather than a contract between the company and the airport it would serve.
We propose that the basic statutory framework of the Screening Partnership Program be amended to allow airports to contract directly with security screening providers or to self-provide screening services. The screening companies should be certified by TSA to be eligible for selection by individual airports, and airports should be able to choose the screening companies that best fit their needs and terminate contracts with those that fail to provide adequate service. Airports that choose to self-provide screening services should be subject to the same TSA certification and oversight as private screening companies.
Convert the 9/11 security fee into a dedicated local user fee
The principal barrier to direct airport contracting with security screening providers is payment responsibility. Under the Screening Partnership Program, rates are determined by TSA, which then pays the contracted providers and assigns them to willing airports. An unfunded mandate on airports to provide certain security services without compensation would surely be opposed by the airport industry.
To address these legitimate concerns, we recommend that Congress reform the existing security service fee, commonly referred to as the 9/11 Security Fee, which is assessed on airline tickets. Currently, airlines are required to impose security fees of $5.60 per one-way trip and a maximum of $11.20 for round-trip tickets (49 U.S.C. Sec. 44940(c)(1)). Airlines then remit the fee revenue to TSA. However, since the enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, Congress has diverted one-third of 9/11 Security Fee revenue for deficit-reduction purposes (49 U.S.C. Sec. 44940(i)).
To fund airports' security screening operations, Congress should convert the 9/11 Security Fee into a dedicated local airport user fee akin to the passenger facility charge (PFC). Congress authorizes enplaning airports to impose PFCs of up to $4.50 per flight segment, with a maximum of two PFCs per one-way trip ($9) and four PFCs per round trip ($18) (49 U.S.C. Sec. 40117(b)(1)). Airlines collect the fees on passenger tickets and remit the revenue directly to the airports at which the passengers enplaned. The Federal Aviation Administration regulates the use of airport PFC revenue by project eligibility criteria (14 C.F.R. Part 158). Despite these restrictions, PFC revenue now accounts for a large share of commercial service airport capital investment, particularly on terminal projects.
A PFC-style 9/11 Security Fee would restore the 9/11 Security Fee to its original purpose of advancing aviation security. Like the Federal Aviation Administration's oversight of the passenger facility charge, TSA should regulate the use of these funds to ensure they are spent on security-related projects and operations. Revenue from a reformed 9/11 Security Fee would be sufficient to cover security screening services at most airports, although Congress should require, as part of these reforms, that TSA conduct a detailed financial analysis. Low-volume airports that might be unable to raise sufficient revenue to provide effective security screening should be supported by a separate account established by Congress and funded through annual appropriations, along with TSA administrative costs and other activities lawmakers deem appropriate.
Conclusion
These reforms to the Transportation Security Administration would significantly improve airport security governance and effectiveness in the United States. They are long overdue and are justified on their own terms. But the latest government shutdown, with the looming threat of commercial air travel chaos, underscores the need for these reforms. Airport security screening is simply too important to be left to the whims of Congress.
Reason Foundation's proposed TSA Reform Act is available here (https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/reforming-tsa.pdf).
* * *
Marc Scribner is a senior transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/reforming-tsa-airport-security-government-shutdowns/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Looking East
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 14 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Oct. 13, 2025:
* * *
Looking East
Investors vote with their wallets.
By Jake Scott
Global investors are turning their interest toward Asia, amid a wider realignment of foreign direct investment (FDI), trade flows, and investor confidence.
A quiet but profound reorientation of global capital is underway, as Goldman Sachs's global wealth division estimates investors have poured more than $100 billion into Asian assets this year. The region's markets are attracting inflows once dominated by
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 14 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Oct. 13, 2025:
* * *
Looking East
Investors vote with their wallets.
By Jake Scott
Global investors are turning their interest toward Asia, amid a wider realignment of foreign direct investment (FDI), trade flows, and investor confidence.
A quiet but profound reorientation of global capital is underway, as Goldman Sachs's global wealth division estimates investors have poured more than $100 billion into Asian assets this year. The region's markets are attracting inflows once dominated bythe United States and Europe. This is not the cyclical rush of hot money that typically follows rising yields or a commodity boom; it reflects a strategic diversification away from Western concentration and the recognition that Asia's capital markets--especially in Japan, India, and Southeast Asia--are becoming the structural center of gravity for global investment.
The timing is not accidental. The post-pandemic decade has left investors uneasy about the durability of US growth and the political uncertainty surrounding fiscal management and trade. As Goldman's Asia wealth head remarked, "The era of the all-US portfolio is over."
A decade of extraordinary dollar strength has also created an underappreciated asymmetry: global portfolios became overweight in US equities, but underexposed to the world's most dynamic consumer bases. As the Federal Reserve signals a long plateau for interest rates, asset managers are looking east for yield, growth, and political hedging.
Nowhere is this more evident than Japan, where investors have rediscovered a market once written off as perennially stagnant; there is a stronger stock market, and a Prime Minister economically inspired by Britain's own Margaret Thatcher has been elected. Private credit and corporate reform are driving a quiet renaissance: KKR's expansion of its Tokyo operations and its prediction of a "private credit boom" underscores how local companies are tapping global capital in ways unthinkable a decade ago. Japan's stock market, meanwhile, has enjoyed record inflows thanks to renewed shareholder activism and the yen's weakness, which enhances export competitiveness. For global wealth managers, Japan is a convenient compromise: developed-market governance with emerging-market pricing.
Singapore and Hong Kong have also re-emerged as financial magnets. Singapore's political stability and its reputation for legal predictability make it an obvious beneficiary of China's capital retraction. HSBC data show that global high-net-worth clients are increasingly relocating wealth to Singapore, the UK, and Switzerland as China's domestic markets stagnate. Yet Hong Kong's story is more complex. The Financial Times recently reported record inflows from mainland investors seeking exposure to offshore listings despite ongoing political friction. Paradoxically, what was once considered a liability (its hybrid identity between China and the West) has become its greatest advantage.
Beyond the financial hubs, the Indian market continues to attract both passive and active capital. The Economic Times highlighted how India has become a natural recipient of diversification away from the US, aided by steady GDP growth and deepening domestic consumption. Global asset managers increasingly treat India as a standalone allocation, not merely a component of "emerging markets." This is a subtle but profound shift: it elevates India from a satellite to a system-defining economy, with its own corporate giants and a growing role in supply-chain diversification away from China.
The restructuring of global supply chains since the pandemic has accelerated this realignment. COVID-19 exposed how dangerously centralized production networks had become; especially those dependent on China's manufacturing base. In the years that followed, firms embraced near-shoring and friend-shoring, relocating manufacturing to politically aligned or geographically closer economies.
Southeast Asia, India, and Mexico have each benefited as Western manufacturers diversified inputs and logistics routes to reduce exposure to geopolitical risk. According to the Financial Times, the breakdown in transshipment routes has effectively ended the practice of re-exporting through China, creating new hubs in Vietnam and Indonesia. This reconfiguration of trade has not only redrawn the map of production but reshaped global capital flows, toward the very regions now absorbing investment on a scale unseen in decades.
Institutional research backs up the anecdotal evidence. BNP Paribas Asset Management and AXA Investment Managers both note that "divergence calls for diversification," as regional growth differentials and currency cycles encourage investors to rebalance across continents. The logic is straightforward: when the world's largest economy also carries the world's largest fiscal deficit, over-concentration becomes a liability. The IMF's latest data show that Asia now accounts for more than half of global growth, and for investors weary of volatility in Western politics, this is no longer a speculative bet but a structural realignment.
Modern Diplomacy's analysis of the same trend observes that the $100 billion inflow marks a "psychological turning point" for fund managers, many of whom had previously viewed Asia as riskier than its reward justified. But the data now contradict that assumption: the MSCI Asia ex-Japan index has outperformed the S&P 500 on a total-return basis for the first time in over a decade, while regional bond markets offer both higher real yields and lower correlation with Western inflation shocks.
It would be mistaken, however, to assume that Asia is insulated from risk. China's property crisis continues to weigh on regional sentiment, and the divergence between democratic and authoritarian regimes introduces political uncertainty of its own. Yet for many institutional allocators, the calculus has changed: rather than avoiding risk, they are seeking to diversify it.
Just as the 1980s saw Western capital flow into Latin America and Eastern Europe in search of frontier returns, the 2020s are witnessing a rotation toward the Indo-Pacific, a region defined not just by low costs but by demographic and technological ascendancy.
The deeper implication is philosophical. For much of the post-Cold War era, global investment strategies were premised on the assumption that the United States would remain the undisputed anchor of economic stability. That assumption no longer holds. The rise of Asia as a capital destination does not mean a rejection of the West, but rather suggests the maturation of a genuinely multipolar financial order. Investors, weary of political volatility in Washington and diminishing returns in Europe, are rediscovering what diversification was always meant to be: not chasing the next hot market, but building resilience through plurality.
In that sense, the $100 billion turning east is not a story about yield curves or carry trades; it is a signal that the geography of confidence has changed. The capital that once circled Wall Street now orbits a wider constellation, from Tokyo to Mumbai to Singapore, and with it the balance of financial power begins quietly, but decisively, to tilt.
* * *
Jake Scott
Dr Jake Scott is a political theorist specialising in populism and its relationship to political constitutionality. He has taught at multiple British universities and produced research reports for several think tanks.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/looking-east/
Asthma & Allergy Foundation Bill to Require Allergen Labeling in California Restaurants Becomes Law
WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 -- The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America issued the following news release on Oct. 13, 2025:
* * *
AAFA Bill to Require Allergen Labeling in California Restaurants Becomes Law
First state law in U.S. to require restaurants to share allergen information with customers
*
The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) celebrates a tremendous win for our community as AAFA-sponsored legislation requiring allergen disclosure in restaurants has been signed into law in California. The Allergen Disclosure for Dining Experiences (ADDE) Act will require California restaurants
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 -- The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America issued the following news release on Oct. 13, 2025:
* * *
AAFA Bill to Require Allergen Labeling in California Restaurants Becomes Law
First state law in U.S. to require restaurants to share allergen information with customers
*
The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) celebrates a tremendous win for our community as AAFA-sponsored legislation requiring allergen disclosure in restaurants has been signed into law in California. The Allergen Disclosure for Dining Experiences (ADDE) Act will require California restaurantswith 20 or more locations nationally to disclose the "Top 9" allergens (milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, fish, shellfish, wheat, soy, sesame) on their menus.
"Today marks a historic victory for the millions of Californians living with food allergies," said Kenneth Mendez, president and CEO of AAFA. "By signing the ADDE Act, Governor Newsom made California the first state in the nation to require restaurants to provide allergen information, fundamentally changing how we approach dining safety. This legislation will save lives by ensuring that families like mine can finally dine out without fear or guesswork about what's in our food. I'm deeply grateful to Senator Caroline Menjivar for her courageous leadership in championing this bill and to Addie Lao and her mother, Robyn, for their tireless advocacy that made this moment possible. While this first step applies to chain restaurants with 20 or more locations, it sets a powerful precedent that will encourage broader adoption across the industry and inspire other states to follow California's lead. This is what progress looks like when advocacy, courage, and common sense come together."
AAFA supported and co-sponsored the ADDE Act along with food allergy advocates Robyn and Addie Lao -- who at age 9 inspired dozens of other children and teens to rally support for this bill. AAFA helped recruit support from nearly 70 state and national organizations, more than 500 health care professionals, and over a thousand California residents.
AAFA provided testimony in legislative hearings, hosted Capitol lobby days (virtual and in-person), hosted an informational webinar and advocate trainings, and communicated with the media about the bill's progress.
"We want to thank all the advocates who wrote their lawmakers, attended legislative hearings in Sacramento, and organized to make this law a reality," said Melanie Carver, AAFA's chief mission officer. "Your voices made a difference, and the result will be felt in thousands of restaurants as people with food allergies enjoy dining out with more confidence to navigate food allergens."
The legislative leader of the bill was Sen. Caroline Menjivar. As someone with food allergies herself, Menjivar understands the challenge presented by dining in restaurants. Her leadership and personal experience helped propel the bill through the legislative process.
About the Law
The original ADDE bill was amended and overwhelming supported by the CA legislature-- passing the Senate 39-0 and the Assembly 66-1. Today, Gov. Newsom signed the bill into law and it goes into effect on July 1, 2026.
What does the ADDE Act do:
* Requires restaurants with 20 locations or more to provide written disclosure of food allergen ingredients to customers.
* Allows restaurants to provide allergen information directly on the menu or in a digital format (such as a QR code). If they provide it digitally, they can use an allergen list or allergen-specific menu.
* Requires restaurants that use a digital format for the allergen disclosure to also offer consumers a print option.
* Provides enforcement through the California Department of Public Health and the local health agencies that regulate food and restaurant safety.
What the ADDE Act doesn't do:
* The law does not apply to restaurants with fewer than 20 locations.
* The law does not apply additional penalties beyond the monetary fine allowed for violations of the health code.
* The law does not require restaurants to provide "may contain" or "shared facility" information.
What's Next
AAFA views this law as a foundation to build on - both in California and in states across the country. The momentum from this win will help us expand food allergen disclosure to more restaurants in California in the future and will also provide a roadmap for successful food allergen disclosure in other states. AAFA is already having conversations with lawmakers in other states about food allergen disclosure legislation for 2026 and beyond.
California restaurant customers should be aware the law will take effect next summer and only pertains to restaurants with at least 20 locations. Patrons with food allergies should communicate with restaurant staff to determine if a dining establishment can accommodate their needs.
Why the ADDE Act Matters
According to a national health survey by the CDC, about 20 million people in the U.S. have food allergies, including more than 2 million people in California. CDC also reports that nearly half of food allergy-related deaths are linked to food from a restaurant or other food service provider.
AAFA's My Life with Food Allergy research and report reveals that families navigating food allergies experience significant impacts to their quality of life due to mental, emotional, and social strain. Nearly 90% of parents managing a child's food allergy report avoiding certain restaurants, and over half have left a restaurant in the middle of dining due to concerns about food safety.
AAFA believes clear, simple food allergen labeling at restaurants should be the standard. This law helps make that possible.
* * *
About AAFA
Founded in 1953, AAFA is the oldest and largest non-profit patient organization dedicated to saving lives and reducing the burden of disease for people with asthma, allergies, and related conditions through research, education, advocacy, and support. AAFA offers extensive support for individuals and families affected by asthma and allergic diseases, such as food allergies and atopic dermatitis (eczema). Through its online patient support communities, network of regional chapters, and collaborations with community-based groups, AAFA empowers patients and their families by providing practical, evidence-based information and community programs and services. AAFA is the only asthma and allergy patient advocacy group that is certified to meet the standards of excellence set by the National Health Council. For more information, visit: aafa.org and kidswithfoodallergies.org
* * *
Original text here: https://aafa.org/aafa-bill-to-require-allergen-labeling-in-california-restaurants-becomes-law/
OMRF wins five top honors from Society of Professional Journalists
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, Oct. 13 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
OMRF wins five top honors from Society of Professional Journalists
*
The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation recently took home top honors in five categories at the Society of Professional Journalists Oklahoma Pro Chapter's 2025 awards.
The competition included more than 400 entries across all categories from organizations and media outlets throughout Oklahoma. Journalists from New Jersey and Tennessee served as judges.
OMRF's magazine, Findings, received first place in the category
... Show Full Article
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, Oct. 13 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
OMRF wins five top honors from Society of Professional Journalists
*
The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation recently took home top honors in five categories at the Society of Professional Journalists Oklahoma Pro Chapter's 2025 awards.
The competition included more than 400 entries across all categories from organizations and media outlets throughout Oklahoma. Journalists from New Jersey and Tennessee served as judges.
OMRF's magazine, Findings, received first place in the categoryof outstanding public relations publication. This marked the fourth time the magazine, which the foundation publishes for more than 30,000 supporters, received top honors in this category.
Editor-in-chief Adam Cohen earned first prize in feature writing for "The Searcher," his Findings profile of Gabriel Pardo, M.D., the founding director of OMRF's Multiple Sclerosis Center of Excellence.
The foundation's annual report, which highlighted 77 people in honor of the foundation's 77 th birthday, won for outstanding graphics. Judges applauded the publication's fresh take on a format that too often elicits only yawns.
"I have read and edited a lot of annual reports, and the majority are something only someone internal would open and read," said the judges. "This is the exception, with a fresh look, vibrant colors, excellent presentation and engaging content. Very, very well done."
OMRF also took first place awards for its employee newsletter, the Bunsen Burner, and a promotional poster designed by OMRF creative director Jenny Lee for a fundraising concert by Tommy James and the Shondells.
***
Original text here: https://omrf.org/2025/10/13/omrf-wins-five-top-honors-from-society-of-professional-journalists/
WLF Urges Ninth Circuit to Apply Direct-Purchaser Rule in Civil RICO Cases
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Oct. 10, 2025:
* * *
WLF Urges Ninth Circuit to Apply Direct-Purchaser Rule in Civil RICO Cases
"Extending RICO standing beyond direct purchasers would unleash duplicative lawsuits, draining judicial resources and undermining enforcement efficiency."
--Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
*
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to affirm dismissal of a civil-RICO claim in a class action against a leading automotive
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Oct. 10, 2025:
* * *
WLF Urges Ninth Circuit to Apply Direct-Purchaser Rule in Civil RICO Cases
"Extending RICO standing beyond direct purchasers would unleash duplicative lawsuits, draining judicial resources and undermining enforcement efficiency."
--Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
*
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to affirm dismissal of a civil-RICO claim in a class action against a leading automotivemanufacturer under the direct-purchaser rule announced in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois. WLF contends that allowing indirect purchasers to sue under RICO would create risks of multiple liability and overdeterrence, contrary to the statute's history and unanimous courts of appeals' precedents. WLF's brief was prepared with the generous pro bono assistance of Ryan Sandrock, co-chair of Shook, Hardy & Bacon's antitrust practice group.
The case stems from a 2023 lawsuit by California consumers alleging FCA US LLC installed "defeat devices" in RAM diesel trucks to evade emissions standards, leading to inflated prices passed on to dealerships. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the RICO claim, holding plaintiffs lacked standing as indirect purchasers, while allowing state-law fraud and warranty claims to proceed. The plaintiffs appealed.
In its amicus brief, WLF argues that the direct-purchaser rule, grounded in the Clayton Act's private right of action and affirmed by the Supreme Court, applies to civil RICO's analogous private-action provision. By limiting standing to direct purchasers and avoiding complex pass-on defenses, the rule promotes efficient litigation. Rejecting plaintiffs' call for a case-by-case proximate-cause analysis, WLF warns that such a rule would complicate causation and damages determinations for multi-level distribution chains.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2025/10/10/litigation-updates/wlf-urges-ninth-circuit-to-apply-direct-purchaser-rule-in-civil-rico-cases/
[Category: Law/Legal]
New Sculpture by James Surls Installed at the George W. Bush Presidential Center
DALLAS, Texas, Oct. 11 -- The George W. Bush Presidential Center issued the following news release on Oct. 10, 2025:
* * *
New Sculpture by James Surls Installed at the George W. Bush Presidential Center
Reflections, by celebrated Texas-native artist, brings striking visual presence to the Bush Center
*
The George W. Bush Presidential Center announced today the installation of a new sculpture by artist renowned artist James Surls. Completed in August 2025, Reflections is thoughtfully integrated into the Bush Center's natural and architectural surroundings.
James Surls, a proud Texas native,
... Show Full Article
DALLAS, Texas, Oct. 11 -- The George W. Bush Presidential Center issued the following news release on Oct. 10, 2025:
* * *
New Sculpture by James Surls Installed at the George W. Bush Presidential Center
Reflections, by celebrated Texas-native artist, brings striking visual presence to the Bush Center
*
The George W. Bush Presidential Center announced today the installation of a new sculpture by artist renowned artist James Surls. Completed in August 2025, Reflections is thoughtfully integrated into the Bush Center's natural and architectural surroundings.
James Surls, a proud Texas native,is widely recognized for creating large-scale sculptures crafted from wood, steel, and bronze. His work is known for its organic forms and raw, expressive aesthetic, which is reflected in his newest installation at the Bush Center.
"Having the opportunity to make something for a space like the Bush Center...it's a real honor and challenge to get to do it," said Surls.
The sculpture is a gift from Shirley and Bill McIntyre, whose support made this installation possible.
"We are proud to welcome Reflections by James Surls to the Bush Center and are grateful to Shirley and Bill McIntyre for their generous contribution," said Rachel Mabry, Vice President of Development at the George W. Bush Presidential Center. "We're excited to share this beautiful piece with the many guests and supporters who visit the Bush Center."
Carved from cedar trees native to Surls' home in Splendora, Texas, the artist named the sculpture Reflections to represent the Bush Center's role as a place for the exchange of ideas. The sculpture has two sides, each facing opposite directions, symbolizing two perspectives in dialogue, with a central "reflection point" where front and back - or differing views - meet.
Surls' work is displayed in various public museum collections including the Smithsonian American Art Museum, Museum of Modern Art, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Whitney Museum of American Art, Dallas Museum of Art, Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth, Meadows Museum at SMU, and many others.
Reflections is installed in the Cross Hall inside the Bush Center, a space open to the public during special events in the adjacent auditorium.
* * *
George W. Bush Presidential Center
Located on the SMU campus in Dallas, Texas, the George W. Bush Presidential Center is a nonpartisan institution advancing the timeless values of freedom, opportunity, accountability, and compassion. The Bush Center comprises the George W. Bush Presidential Museum and the George W. Bush Institute, a solution-oriented policy organization focused on ensuring opportunity for all, strengthening democracy, and advancing free societies through policy solutions and public engagement. The Bush Center also houses the George W. Bush Presidential Library, operated by the National Archives and Records Administration, which provides access to official documents and artifacts from the George W. Bush Administration. Learn more about the Bush Center at bushcenter.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.bushcenter.org/newsroom/new-sculpture-by-james-surls-installed-at-the-george-w-bush-presidential-center
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Mexicans Must Pay to Play?
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 11 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary on Oct. 10, 2025:
* * *
Mexicans Must Pay to Play?
Mexico's proposed 8% tax on violent video games.
By Sergio Martinez
The Mexican federal government has announced a new 8% excise tax on violent video games. The justification? That violent games are responsible for violent behavior.
Violence is indeed a heavy problem in Mexico, and organized crime has left significant parts of the country in a state of terror. But attacking video games seems a poor policy-choice that echoes the moral panics
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 11 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary on Oct. 10, 2025:
* * *
Mexicans Must Pay to Play?
Mexico's proposed 8% tax on violent video games.
By Sergio Martinez
The Mexican federal government has announced a new 8% excise tax on violent video games. The justification? That violent games are responsible for violent behavior.
Violence is indeed a heavy problem in Mexico, and organized crime has left significant parts of the country in a state of terror. But attacking video games seems a poor policy-choice that echoes the moral panicsof the 1990s--when games like Mortal Kombat triggered congressional hearings and headlines about the corruption of the youth that led to the creation of the ESRB system. Such panics gain political traction even when evidence is lacking.
To support the claim that video games inspire violence, the government cited only a single academic article--no broad review of the research, no comparison of diverse findings, and no solid data.
This lack of rigor matters. When a government intervenes in markets, the burden of proof must rest squarely on its shoulders. By failing to substantiate its claims, the Mexican state undermines the legitimacy of its proposal.
Freedom requires institutions that protect property rights and ensure that voluntary exchanges are not restricted arbitrarily by the state. When the government wishes to intrude on these exchanges, it must show that doing so is not only justified but necessary. It is insufficient to declare that an activity might generate bad side effects. The government must prove that, in the absence of intervention, third parties would be gravely harmed. The burden of proof falls on the state, not the citizen. In the case of the violent video game tax, the Mexican government falls far short of this standard.
The rationale used by the government illustrates the idea of a Pigouvian tax. An economic concept named after economist Arthur C. Pigou, the idea is that when private activities generate negative externalities--costs that spill over onto others--the state can impose a tax to reflect these costs. If violent games really do foster aggression or social harm, this is a cost to society, and a corrective tax could, in theory, make sense.
But the government would first need to prove the following:
* Do violent video games in fact generate measurable negative externalities?
* Even if they do, has the government shown that an 8% tax is the correct tool and rate to offset them?
The answer to both questions is NO.
Even if one accepts that violent video games cause some level of social harm, the Mexican government has not shown that its proposed 8% tax is a fair assessment. The tax claims to be corrective, but it is just revenue-oriented and symbolic.
The literature on violent games and violence is divided and nuanced. It is important to distinguish between aggression--often measured in laboratory tasks or surveys--and actual violent crime. Many studies show small increases in short-term aggression after playing violent games, but evidence linking them to criminal violence is lacking.
Anyone searching for evidence that violent video games fuel aggression will find studies to lean on. The 2010 meta-analysis by Anderson and colleagues linked violent games to increases in aggressive thoughts and less empathy. Similarly, Matt DeLisi's 2013 work on incarcerated youth found correlations between violent gameplay and delinquency, hinting that in already high-risk populations, games might add yet another nudge toward antisocial behavior.
But there is a crucial difference between experiencing aggressive feelings and the commission of violent crimes. Studies that seek to uncover a causal link between explicit criminal violence and video games come up empty. Christopher Ferguson, in a body of work spanning from 2007 to 2019, found that once you correct for publication bias--journals favoring studies that report significant effects, the supposed connection largely vanishes. And some economists have found an opposite pattern. In a 2016 study using US crime data, Cunningham and colleagues found that in weeks with higher violent game sales, violent crime rates actually dipped slightly. Time spent playing games keeps some people away from riskier activities. And more recently, a large-scale study by Przybylski and Weinstein (2019), in a preregistered investigation in the United Kingdom, reported no link between violent gameplay and adolescent aggression.
So yes, violent games may stir emotions or spark brief flashes of aggression, but they don't seem to turn players into violent offenders. If anything, the evidence suggests they might even keep people away from crime. On Pigouvian grounds, that wouldn't justify a tax at all. It would call for subsidies!
Mexico has over 72.6 million gamers and a gaming market worth $2.6 billion annually. Between 2015 and 2024, the number of households with consoles rose from 3.6 million to 8.1 million, an increase of 125%. Gaming is a booming industry, creating jobs, attracting investment, and fostering innovation.
Analysts at GameMetron--a Mexican Legaltech firm specializing in the video game and esports industry-- estimate that a title priced at MX$100 would cost MX$124 after the new tax. Consumers who value the game at above MX$100 but below MX$124 will no longer purchase it. These foregone transactions mean that consumers lose enjoyment, firms lose sales, and the government gains nothing from the missed tax revenue.
Developers and publishers may reduce investment or delay releases in Mexico, perceiving the market as less profitable. Smaller domestic studios, already operating on thin margins, may find themselves particularly disadvantaged. The tax may paradoxically reduce VAT revenues, as lower sales volume negate gains from the surcharge.
The violent video game tax fails on both the scientific and economic fronts. It is not backed by solid evidence of harm, nor is it calibrated as a Pigouvian correction. It risks damaging a dynamic industry, raising consumer prices, and distorting incentives, all while offering negligible social benefit. More importantly, it erodes the principle that government interventions in free markets must be justified with strong evidence. To impose an arbitrary tax on a cultural and technological sector based on weak correlations is to substitute prejudice for analysis.
* * *
Sergio Martinez
Sergio Martinez is an Editorial Associate at the Foundation for Economic Education, with a background in the public sector and experience speaking at numerous forums and seminars on economic education.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/mexicans-must-pay-to-play/
