think-tank centrist bipartisan energy healthcare housing immigration governance class-analysis
related: Goldman Sachs
Who They Are
The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank founded in 2007 by four former Senate Majority Leaders: Howard Baker (R-TN), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Bob Dole (R-KS), and George Mitchell (D-ME). Headquartered at 1225 Eye Street NW, Washington, D.C., BPC’s institutional brand is built on the premise that bipartisan agreement is both possible and desirable — a premise that its class function depends upon maintaining.
BPC’s roots trace to 2002, when the National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) was founded — an energy-industry-funded commission that later became BPC’s Energy Project. This origin matters: BPC was built from an energy industry initiative, and energy policy remains central to its operation.
Budget: $37.8 million total revenue (FY2024), $35.4 million in expenses, $40.7 million in net assets, $62.8 million in total assets. Revenue has grown from $20 million (FY2010) to $37.8 million (FY2024). The organization also operates a 501(c)(4) advocacy arm, Bipartisan Policy Center Action.
Tax status: 501(c)(3). Tax-exempt since July 2002. EIN: 73-1628382.
Current President & CEO: Margaret Spellings (since September 2023). Former U.S. Secretary of Education under George W. Bush, former president of the University of North Carolina system. Compensation: $782K (FY2024) plus $195K in related compensation — total package exceeding $1M.
Former President & CEO: Jason Grumet (2007–January 2023). Founded BPC and ran it for 15 years. Left to become CEO of the American Clean Power Association — a direct revolving door move from “bipartisan” policy think tank to clean energy industry trade group. Compensation peaked at $769K + $192K related (FY2022).
Key staff:
- William Hoagland (Senior VP, $254K + $85K from related org) — former staff director of Senate Budget Committee
- Steven Scully (SVP Communications, $363K) — former C-SPAN political editor
- Dennis Shea (Executive Director, Housing, $332K) — former HUD Deputy Secretary under Trump
- Shai Akabas (Executive Director, Economic Policy, $249K)
Staff size: Approximately 90-100. Mid-size for a D.C. think tank.
Notable FY2024 flag: ProPublica’s 990 filing notes BPC “reported conflict of interest transactions” — organizations must report loans, grants, or business transactions with interested parties including key employees, officers, and their family members.
Who Funds Them
BPC’s funding model mixes corporate sponsorship, foundations, and individual donors. In FY2024, per BPC’s own disclosures: 78% from institutional foundations, 20% from corporates and other sources, 2% from individual and family foundations.
Known corporate funders and sponsors:
- Google — Funded BPC’s 2024 AI education project for legislators
- Nvidia — Funded BPC energy report on data center demand (cited in 2025 congressional testimony)
- Hewlett Foundation — Early and ongoing funder (energy policy)
- MacArthur Foundation — General support
Historical corporate funders (per InfluenceWatch/DeSmog):
- Energy companies (through the NCEP predecessor and ongoing Energy Project)
- Healthcare industry actors (through the Health Program)
- Housing and real estate interests (through the Terwilliger Center for Housing Policy, named after former National Association of Home Builders chair Ron Terwilliger)
The Harvard ethics report: In 2013, the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University published research finding that BPC “advanced the interests of its funders, including corporations and industry associations who provide operational support and philanthropies that fund much of the center’s programmatic work.” This is the most direct academic critique of BPC’s funding-to-policy pipeline.
Board of Directors (FY2024, selected):
| Name | Title | Background |
|---|---|---|
| Henry Cisneros | Chair | Former HUD Secretary (Clinton) |
| Julian Castro | Director | Former HUD Secretary (Obama) |
| John Delaney | Director | Former U.S. Representative (D-MD), former presidential candidate |
| Gary Locke | Director (until 6/2024) | Former Governor of Washington, former U.S. Ambassador to China, former Commerce Secretary |
| Karen Kelley | Director | Finance industry background |
| Leana Wen | Director | Former Baltimore Health Commissioner, CNN medical analyst |
| Michael Steele | Director (through 2021) | Former RNC Chairman |
| Olympia Snowe | Director (paid, $25K–$150K/yr) | Former U.S. Senator (R-ME) — the only board member receiving significant compensation |
| Geisha Williams | Director (until 6/2024) | Former CEO, PG&E Corporation |
Money
BPC’s funding model creates a structural incentive to produce “bipartisan” research that corporate funders find useful. When Google funds an AI project for legislators, the research frames AI policy as a bipartisan opportunity rather than a corporate regulation question. When Nvidia funds a data center report, the output predictably supports data center expansion. The “bipartisan” brand is the product — it transforms corporate policy preferences into something that looks like consensus rather than lobbying. The Harvard ethics finding that BPC “advanced the interests of its funders” is the academic confirmation of what the funding structure makes obvious.
What They Produce
BPC operates through six major policy programs, each with its own corporate and institutional funding streams:
1. Energy — BPC’s original program, descended from the NCEP. Supports “all-of-the-above” energy policy (both renewables and fossil fuels). Nvidia-funded data center report is the most recent example of corporate-commissioned research packaged as nonpartisan analysis.
2. Health — Healthcare policy research including Medicare/Medicaid reform, behavioral health, public health preparedness. Headed by Marilyn Serafini with Dr. Anand Parekh as chief medical advisor.
3. Housing (Terwilliger Center) — Housing policy research. Named after real estate industry figure Ron Terwilliger. Dennis Shea (former Trump HUD Deputy Secretary) runs it. Focuses on housing supply, affordability, and zoning reform.
4. Democracy / Governance — Election administration, congressional reform, government efficiency. Matthew Weil leads. This is BPC’s most publicly visible program — producing analysis on voter registration, election security, and legislative process.
5. Economic Policy — Fiscal policy, debt ceiling analysis, workforce development. Shai Akabas leads. William Hoagland (former Senate Budget Committee staff director) provides institutional credibility.
6. Immigration — Immigration reform proposals. Emphasizes bipartisan frameworks.
Also: BPC Action (the 501(c)(4) arm) engages in direct advocacy and lobbying.
The Policy Pipeline
BPC’s policy pipeline operates through the “bipartisan commission” model: assemble a panel of former officials from both parties, produce consensus recommendations, present them as the “reasonable middle” that transcends partisan conflict.
How BPC research becomes policy:
- Corporate or foundation funds a program — Energy companies fund energy research, health industry funds health research, Google funds AI research
- BPC convenes bipartisan commission — Former senators, governors, Cabinet secretaries from both parties co-chair
- Commission produces “consensus” recommendations — Recommendations fall within the range acceptable to both corporate funders and bipartisan establishment
- Media frames output as “common ground” — The former-official brand and bipartisan label generate favorable coverage
- Legislative proposals — Members of Congress introduce legislation based on BPC frameworks, citing the “bipartisan” origins
Donation-to-Policy Timeline
| Date | Recipient/Target | Amount | Policy Return | Time Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | Energy industry → NCEP | Founding funding | National Commission on Energy Policy established — framing energy policy as “bipartisan” rather than regulatory | Foundation for BPC |
| 2007 | Baker/Daschle/Dole/Mitchell | Founding investment | BPC launched with bipartisan Senate leader branding | Immediate |
| 2013 | Harvard ethics researchers | N/A (external study) | Harvard finds BPC “advanced the interests of its funders” | Independent finding |
| 2021 | Foundations + corporates | $44.9M spike | Revenue nearly doubled — largest single-year intake in BPC history | Coincides with post-pandemic policy window |
| Mar 2024 | Google → BPC AI project | Undisclosed | AI education project for legislators — Google shapes legislative understanding of AI regulation | Immediate |
| Feb 2025 | Nvidia → BPC energy report | Undisclosed | Report on data center energy demand — cited in congressional testimony, supports data center expansion | ~12 months to policy citation |
| FY2024 | Housing/real estate interests → Terwilliger Center | Ongoing | Housing policy shaped by former Trump HUD deputy secretary, named after industry figure | Ongoing |
Money
BPC’s 2021 revenue spike to $44.9 million — nearly double normal — coincides with the post-pandemic, pre-Build Back Better legislative window when corporate interests needed bipartisan vehicles to shape infrastructure, health, and energy legislation. When the legislative stakes are highest, BPC’s revenue rises because its “bipartisan consensus” product becomes most valuable to funders seeking policy influence that doesn’t look like lobbying.
The Revolving Door
BPC’s revolving door is its core design feature. The institution exists as a credentialed landing pad for former officials and a launching pad for future ones.
Board-to-government / government-to-board pipeline:
| Name | Government Role | BPC Role | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Henry Cisneros | HUD Secretary (Clinton) | Board Chair | Government → BPC |
| Julian Castro | HUD Secretary (Obama) | Board Director | Government → BPC |
| Gary Locke | Commerce Secretary, Ambassador to China, Governor | Board Director | Government → BPC |
| Margaret Spellings | Secretary of Education (Bush) | President & CEO | Government → BPC |
| Dennis Shea | HUD Deputy Secretary (Trump) | Executive Director, Housing | Government → BPC |
| Michael Steele | RNC Chairman | Board Director | Politics → BPC |
| Olympia Snowe | U.S. Senator (R-ME) | Paid Director ($25K–$150K/yr) | Government → BPC |
| Jason Grumet | BPC Founder/CEO | CEO, American Clean Power Association | BPC → Industry |
| William Hoagland | Senate Budget Committee Staff Director | Senior VP | Government → BPC |
| Geisha Williams | CEO, PG&E Corporation | Board Director | Industry → BPC |
| Pam Patenaude | HUD Deputy Secretary (Trump) | Board Director (through 2021) | Government → BPC |
The pattern: BPC collects former Cabinet secretaries, senators, and senior officials from both parties. The “bipartisan” credential is manufactured by having a Democrat and a Republican co-chair every commission. The revolving door operates in every direction: government officials land at BPC after service, BPC alumni move into new administrations, and (as the Grumet → American Clean Power case shows) BPC leaders rotate into industry positions. The notable feature is the two-HUD-secretaries-plus-a-deputy pattern: Cisneros (Clinton), Castro (Obama), Shea (Trump), Patenaude (Trump) all flowing into BPC’s housing program — ensuring that housing policy is shaped by former officials from the agency that regulates housing.
Contradiction
BPC’s “bipartisan” branding suggests it transcends political conflict to find common ground. But the revolving door reveals who gets to define “common ground”: former officials whose careers were spent in the bipartisan establishment. The boundaries of acceptable policy are set by the same people who governed within those boundaries. “Bipartisan consensus” at BPC means consensus among former officials of both parties — not consensus between the political establishment and the public. The housing program is the purest example: three HUD secretaries and a deputy secretary from both parties agree that housing policy should favor the same real estate and homebuilder interests that funded them all.
What Their Funders Got
Energy industry funders got:
- “All-of-the-above” energy framing that preserves fossil fuel production while adding renewables
- Bipartisan cover for opposing aggressive climate regulation
- The NCEP-to-BPC pipeline: an energy industry initiative rebranded as nonpartisan policy research
- Nvidia’s data center demand report presented as objective analysis rather than industry advocacy
Tech industry (Google, Nvidia) got:
- Legislative framing of AI as opportunity rather than threat requiring regulation
- Bipartisan legitimacy for tech policy preferences
- Direct access to legislators through BPC-organized briefings
Healthcare industry got:
- Reform proposals that preserve the private insurance model while addressing cost concerns
- Bipartisan consensus against more structural reforms (single-payer, public option)
Real estate / housing industry got:
- Terwilliger Center for Housing Policy — named after a homebuilder industry leader
- Housing supply proposals that favor development industry interests
- Three former HUD secretaries legitimizing industry-friendly housing policy
Both parties’ political establishments got:
- A credentialed retirement home for former officials (with compensation: Spellings at $1M+, Grumet at $960K+)
- “Bipartisan” brand that maintains the centrist consensus against both left-wing and right-wing populism
- Think tank infrastructure that frames the establishment position as the moderate, reasonable default
Class Analysis
The Bipartisan Policy Center is the most structurally revealing think tank in the vault because it makes explicit what others disguise: the real divide in American politics is not between Democrats and Republicans but between the bipartisan establishment and everyone outside it.
1. Manufacturing consent for the corporate center. BPC’s function is to define the “reasonable middle” on every policy issue — and that middle consistently aligns with corporate interests. On energy: “all-of-the-above” (preserve fossil fuels while adding renewables). On healthcare: “reform within the private system” (no single-payer). On housing: “increase supply” (more building, not rent control or public housing). On immigration: “comprehensive reform” (labor supply management for employers). On AI: “bipartisan opportunity” (don’t regulate too aggressively). The “bipartisan” frame makes these corporate-friendly positions appear as neutral consensus rather than the policy preferences of specific economic interests.
2. The “bipartisan” brand as ideological weapon. “Bipartisan” does not mean “popular” or “democratic.” It means “agreed upon by elites of both parties.” BPC’s commissions exclude voices that challenge the corporate consensus from either direction — no progressive populists, no right-wing populists. The Sanders left and the Trump right are both outside BPC’s definition of “reasonable.” This is the bipartisan credibility shield pattern from the Framework: the institution maintains token ideological diversity (a Democrat and a Republican co-chair) while funding comes overwhelmingly from corporate and establishment sources.
3. The former-official business model. BPC pays former Cabinet secretaries and senators handsomely to lend their names and credibility to corporate-funded research. Spellings’ $1M+ total compensation, Grumet’s $960K+ package, and Olympia Snowe’s $25K–$150K annual board fees are the explicit price of the “bipartisan” brand. These aren’t researchers — they’re credential suppliers. The actual policy work is done by the professional staff; the former officials provide the “former Secretary of ___” title that makes the output look authoritative.
4. The revolving door as design, not flaw. Unlike most think tanks where the revolving door is a side effect, at BPC it’s the business model. Former officials create BPC’s credibility, BPC creates the “bipartisan consensus” product, the consensus product is sold (through research, events, congressional briefings) to corporate funders, and the cycle continues. The Harvard ethics finding — that BPC “advanced the interests of its funders” — is not a bug. It’s what the funders pay for: their interests repackaged as bipartisan agreement.
Money
BPC spent $3.3 million on executive compensation in FY2024 — 9.3% of total expenses — to maintain a stable of former officials whose primary value is their titles. The organization’s $37.8 million budget buys something no amount of lobbying can: the appearance that corporate policy preferences represent the consensus view of America’s most experienced political leaders. This is idea laundering at its most efficient: corporate money in, “bipartisan consensus” out, and the former officials get paid for the name rental. The Harvard ethics report said the quiet part aloud in 2013, and nothing changed — because the business model works exactly as designed.
Sources
- ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer: Bipartisan Policy Center Inc (EIN 73-1628382) (Tier 1)
- Wikipedia: Bipartisan Policy Center (Tier 3)
- InfluenceWatch: Bipartisan Policy Center (Tier 3)
- DeSmog: Bipartisan Policy Center (Tier 2)
- OpenSecrets: Bipartisan Policy Center Profile (Tier 1)
- Bipartisan Policy Center: FAQ — How BPC Is Funded (Tier 3)
- Renewable Energy World: Grumet Tapped to Lead American Clean Power Association (Tier 3)
- American Clean Power Association: Jason Grumet Named CEO (Tier 3)
- MacArthur Foundation: Bipartisan Policy Center Grant (Tier 1)
- Media Bias/Fact Check: Bipartisan Policy Center (Tier 3)
- Bipartisan Policy Center: Corporate Council — current corporate sponsors (Tier 3)
- Harvard Safra Center for Ethics: Lab Dispatches Vol. 3 — think tank funding and funder interests analysis (PDF) (Tier 2)
- SourceWatch: National Commission on Energy Policy — BPC’s energy industry origin (Tier 3)
- Quincy Institute: Big Ideas and Big Money — Think Tank Funding in America (includes BPC analysis) (Tier 2)
- Responsible Statecraft: Weapons makers, foreign states lavish $32 million on US think tanks (includes BPC data) (Tier 2)
content-readiness:: ready