How Think Tanks Work

After World War II, think tanks began playing an important role in the shaping of government policy. People regarded them as academic organizations that took a nonpartisan, scholarly approach to public policy issues. Their proliferation in the United States was pushed along by their tax-exempt status, which was codified in 1913. In the 1950s, Congress refined the limits on what think tanks could and could not do politically if they wanted to keep their tax-exempt status. They had to straddle a thin line between information and partisan activity. They couldn't offer support to specific parties or candidates; they could only educate [source: Troy].

While many think tanks still carry on objective work, some now have narrower, partisan agendas. Scholars have called these institutions "advocacy" think tanks. They serve as training grounds for activists and for politicians and policy makers who wait to take the reins of government again. For example, after Democrats were beaten in the 2000 elections, party members, progressive intellectuals and activists started the Center for American Progress, a liberal economic organization. Although it bills itself as a "nonpartisan" educational organization, CAP's stated goal is to "develop new policy ideas, critique the policy that stems from conservative values, challenge the media to cover the issues that truly matter, and shape the national debate" [sources: Troy, Center for American Progress].

In 2008, with the Democrats in ascendancy, conservatives and members of the Republican Party formed right-of-center think tanks to move the United States down a more conservative economic path in the hopes of regaining the White House [source: Troy].

Regardless of size, ideological bent or issue, all think tanks have one thing in common: to influence public opinion and policy. After World War II, Brookings was instrumental in rebuilding war-ravaged Europe by helping to design the Marshall Plan. During the early days of the Cold War, the Council on Foreign Relations helped shaped a policy of containment, which the Western democracies used against the communist Soviet Union [source: Troy].

In the 1980s, the Heritage Foundation drafted an extensive, conservative political agenda for Ronald Reagan's transition team. The agenda contained more than 2,000 recommendations that United Press International called "a blueprint for grabbing the government by its frayed New Deal lapels and shaking out 48 years of liberal policy." Reagan's team tried to implement more than two-thirds of those proposals during his two terms. On the other side of the aisle, the Progressive Policy Institute offered numerous proposals that Democratic President Bill Clinton turned into policy actions, including AmeriCorps and Al Gore's attempt to "re-invent government" [sources: Blasko, Troy].

Given that little history, you can see how criticism of think tanks abounds. Although they often bill themselves as "independent" and media outlets may portray think tank experts as "neutral," that's not always the case. That ties into perhaps the biggest criticism: the funding mechanism for think tanks. The organizations get most of their money through donations by large businesses, major foundations, private individuals and charities, as well as income from consulting and research. They are not required by law to list their donors.

That's a problem if you believe that think tanks often tailor messages to mimic the ideology of donors who demand results. For example, in recent years, conservative billionaires have funneled $120 million to 100 groups and think tanks hoping to discredit climate change science and redefine the political debate as a "wedge issue" for conservative politicians. Campaign-finance reform rules have allowed donors to support political causes like this without breaking the law [source: Goldenberg].

In 2013, weekly magazine The Nation revealed that the positions of the left-leaning Center for American Progress and other Washington think tanks are shaped by the interests of their donors.

"Nowadays, many Washington think tanks effectively serve as unregistered lobbyists for corporate donors, and companies strategically contribute to them just as they hire a PR or lobby shop or make campaign donations," wrote Ken Silverstein in the article.

Moreover, think tanks are not obligated by law to release their financial statements, nor do they have to reveal their donors. As a result, people don't know if a study is impartial [source: Silverstein].

Critics also see a nefarious relationship between corporations and think tanks. For example, the foundation run by Charles and David Koch, billionaires who run the second-largest privately held company in the United States, supports the work of the conservative Heritage Foundation and the centrist Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, among others. The Walton Family Foundation (read: Wal-Mart) funds a variety of conservative think tanks. They also support centrist institutions that have backed President Obama's Affordable Care Act. Why would the conservative foundation lend its support to a pro-Obama think tank? Critics say the group supported a law that would force employers to pay for their employees' health insurance. The reason: The law would have driven up health care costs for Wal-Mart's small business competitors [sources: Wiesenthal, Carp].

Still, scholars say that actual "bought and paid for" research is rare, although some think tank researchers are unlikely to publish a study or an essay that infuriates their bosses or major donors. Moreover, the clash of money has often caused some think tanks to self-censor on issues in which they have been vocal about out in the past [source: Troy].

Think tanks are highly influential. As result, we can expect more of them. Moreover, experts say, think tanks will become more political, adding to the intellectual and partisan din coming from government.