Zachary Albert, assistant professor of politics at Brandeis University and author of “Partisan Policy Networks: How Research Organizations Became Party Allies and Political Advocates,” discussed on Mar. 27 how nonprofit public-policy research organizations, commonly known as think tanks, have become increasingly politicized and partisan.
Albert’s observations are based on his research into the evolution of think tanks from institutions originally intended to further scholarly research for policy debates to organizations that now often serve as political allies. He said this shift is largely due to the influence of institutional and individual donors who fund these organizations while benefiting from tax-code provisions designed to incentivize charitable giving.
According to Albert, a growing number of think tanks with public charity status under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) have established affiliated entities classified as social-welfare groups under section 501(c)(4). These affiliated groups can engage in some political activities if such efforts are not their primary activity. “The ability to engage in direct advocacy and activism while still retaining the legal and popular patina of a think tank is highly desirable for policy-demanding groups,” Albert wrote in his book.
Albert’s data show that most early think tanks founded before 1990 did not directly participate in politics, but those established since the 1990s are more likely than not to engage in direct political activism, often through an affiliated advocacy organization. He said these organizations generally seek to influence policy along ideological lines and tend to support one political party.
He also noted a decline in what he called the technocratic vision that characterized early think tanks—an approach focused on objective research rather than partisan goals. “That started to diminish… especially in the 1970s,” Albert said during a recorded conversation earlier this month. He explained that conservative groups began creating their own politically active organizations during this period, followed by similar actions from liberal groups later on.
Regarding funding sources, Albert distinguished between institutional funders like corporations or foundations and individual donors. He found academic-style think tanks rely more on institutional money, while more politically active ones depend heavily on individuals who expect alignment with their views. This reliance can lead organizations toward short-term-focused research aimed at satisfying donor preferences rather than maintaining objectivity.
On the legal distinction between (c)(3) charities and (c)(4) social-welfare groups within these networks, Albert reported that insiders see little practical difference: “There’s almost no firewall between the activities of the two. It’s purely a technical and legal distinction.” While this could suggest avenues for reform, he added that public awareness about these issues remains low.
